Oral Answers to Questions

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Incapacity Benefit

Bob Spink: How many incapacity benefit claimants there were on average in (a) 1997 and (b) 2004.

Alan Johnson: In 1997 2.54 million people of working age were receiving incapacity benefit. At the end of 2004 there were 2.64 million. The substantial growth of   that number during the 1980s and 1990s has been brought under control with the inflow reduced by one third. The latest statistics show a small but significant fall of 22,000 in the total number of people on incapacity benefit over the past year.

Bob Spink: But is the number of working-age claimants higher or lower than in 1997?

Alan Johnson: I believe that the number of working-age claimants is marginally higher, but I will check that statistic. The point is that if the trend in the growth of the number of people going on to incapacity benefit had continued, more than 4 million people would now be on that benefit. The fact that we have reduced the inflow by one third and reached that significant figure—the total figure—with a small but significant improvement must be a cause for celebration on both sides of the House.

Kali Mountford: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information on the trend of incapacity benefit claims and the welcome news that it has fallen, but should we not be doing more by ensuring that people who need benefit in the long term are properly supported with incentives and supporting those who may, in the short term, be able to work again and return to the productive life that they should be used to?

Alan Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend. We must not be complacent. I am not complacent about simply reducing the inflow by one third or about the small but   significant fall. That is why pathways to work is so important. When it is rolled out throughout the whole country we can build on that with radical reform of the   incapacity benefit system so that future generations never get into the same position of being written off for the whole of their lives as passive recipients of benefits. We can do more and we have set out radical proposals in our five-year strategy to meet those objectives.

Archy Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State accept that the success or otherwise of pathways to work rests on the effectiveness of personal advisers or disability advisers, particularly in areas with more incapacity benefit recipients, as there are regional disparities in some parts of the country? Is he satisfied that enough support and personal and disability advisers are available to do the job properly, even if the policy is right?

Alan Johnson: No, the number is not adequate and we need another 10,000 people in front-line personal adviser roles. We are learning lessons all the time from pathways to work—it covers only 10 per cent. of the country at the moment but is being extended to one third of the country—about the package of support we need to provide for personal advisers. It would be disastrous to reduce the number of personal advisers and go backwards.
	The hon. Gentleman may be attending his last Department for Work and Pensions questions. May I   pay tribute to him for his work with the Work and Pensions Committee on this subject?

Angela Eagle: May I welcome the imminent arrival of pathways to work on Merseyside? One of the more interesting aspects of our experience of the pathways programme to date is that many people who have been on incapacity benefit are volunteering to join the programme because they want the chance to get back into meaningful work. Does he agree that that is one of the most interesting and significant aspects of what we have learnt from the process?

Alan Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend. Ten per cent. of those coming on to the pathways to work scheme are not supposed to be covered by it because they have been on incapacity benefit for long time, but are asking to take part. When we look at the success of placing in work those who are on the scheme—the number is double that in non-pathways areas—we see that a large proportion of them are volunteers who have been out of the work force for a long time.
	Just last month we introduced that part of pathways that brings in those people who have been on incapacity benefit for three years, having initially started with those in their first 12 months. Although it is early days, we are already, and once again, seeing that people with genuine medical problems want to work. Given help and encouragement and the brilliant work of our personal advisers and the national health service condition management advisers, we can really crack the problem and transform those people's lives.

Paul Goodman: We have announced that our opportunity first scheme will get 400,000 people off incapacity benefit and back into work over the course of a Parliament. Will the reforms that the Secretary of State has announced get more people or less people off incapacity benefit and back into work?

Hon. Members: Fewer people.

Alan Johnson: We are reminded to use the correct grammatical term.
	The hon. Gentleman asked that very question at the last Department for Work and Pensions questions. I do not doubt for a minute that Conservative Members really want to take 400,000 people off incapacity benefit and put them into work. However, the problem is that it is difficult to take their proposal seriously, and I am sorry about that. It is not just their record in government that was appalling—from 700,000 to 2.6 million people on incapacity benefit—but also the fact that one struggles to think how one could get 400,000 people off incapacity benefit and into work while simultaneously cutting the number of staff by 50 per cent., closing 600 jobcentres, cancelling the whole new deal and privatising Jobcentre Plus. I would like to have a modicum of faith in what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not believe it and I am pretty sure that the British public will not believe it.

Bob Blizzard: I can tell the House that I have not had to claim incapacity benefit in the past two and a half months while I have been away from this place.
	In my constituency, as in many others, there are people on incapacity benefit who definitely want to get back into work. There are also constituents of mine who   tell me about people who are on incapacity benefit and who, judged by the activities that they are seen performing, are perfectly capable of going back to work. However, they stay on incapacity benefit. What will my right hon. Friend do to tackle both types of people so that we get both back to work?

Alan Johnson: There are two issues. First, we independently measured the amount of fraud with incapacity benefit in about 1998–99. It was tiny; it was infinitesimal. However, there is no doubt that in the 1980s and early 1990s—we all know this from experience in our constituencies—many people who should have had an active working life in front of them were encouraged to move on to incapacity benefit. That group presents the greatest challenge because, in a sense, those people—and sometimes it is whole generations of the same family—have got used to being out of work. That is why the success of pathways in dealing with the most difficult-to-reach people is so encouraging.
	The lessons for both groups are the same: to offer personal assistance; to offer them help and support to get into work, including the £40 a week in-work credit; to offer NHS condition management; and to give these people the confidence and dignity that they often lack and to help them in the process. The message for both groups is the same, but the challenge of one group will be much harder than that of the other.

New Deal

Patrick Mercer: if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the new deal 25-plus.

Chris Pond: Our successful economic and labour market policies have cut long-term unemployment by three quarters to its lowest level for 30 years. New deal 25-plus has played an important role in this success, so far helping more than 210,000 people into work. I suspect that the l,650 people who have been helped into work through the new deal in Newark, including 250 people through new deal 25-plus, will be disappointed to learn that their Member of Parliament supports a plan to scrap it.

Patrick Mercer: I am particularly grateful to the Minister for illustrating his reply with points from my constituency. The fact remains that, in surgeries in both Newark and Retford, I find that a number of people are being readmitted to the scheme for a second time. That is borne out by the fact that about a third of people nationally have to come back to the scheme for a second go. Could the Minister confirm that the scheme is designed to introduce people to permanent employment and not simply to act as a revolving door?

Chris Pond: There is one very effective way to prevent people from going back on to such schemes, and that is to scrap them altogether, which is, I assume, the hon. Gentleman's proposal. We do not propose to do that. Given that we are talking about people who face some of the greatest barriers to entering and remaining in work, inevitably, in a dynamic labour market, some of them will need continuing help before finding themselves in long-term sustainable employment. Our commitment is to ensure that we reach out so that even the hardest to help get the help that they need to join the growing ranks of people in long-term sustainable employment.

Jeff Ennis: The Minister is probably aware that my constituency has one of the lowest levels of GDP per capita of any in the UK, yet more than 91 per cent. of people on long-term unemployment benefit since 1997 have been found employment in Barnsley, East and Mexborough. Will he   ensure that successful schemes, like the new deal 25-plus, will continue under his watch?

Chris Pond: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that reassurance. Indeed, he will know that we have extended the help for new deal 25-plus even further. Last year, we   extended early entry to the scheme to more disadvantaged groups, including lone parents, people with basic skills, ex-service personnel and refugees. Frankly, we have no intention whatsoever of scrapping such a scheme, which has helped hundreds of thousands of people, or the new deal as a whole, which has helped 1.2 million. I can reassure him that that help will continue.

Quentin Davies: Has the Minister plans for compelling mothers whose children are below 16, with the youngest reaching perhaps 14 or even 11, to leave income support and go on to jobseeker's allowance?

Chris Pond: No. We are looking to give that group of people additional support because many of them want to get back into the labour market. We have no intention, however, of making that compulsory. We will ensure that they get all the help necessary, and we will   make a proper assessment of their needs to see what help they need to get into work.

Frank Field: Does the Minister accept that although it is natural for us to argue over figures, our electorate will be much more interested in the fundamental change that the Government have been trying to make of moving the welfare state from one that merely pays benefits to one that, wherever possible, ensures that people can work?

Chris Pond: Yes, and I worked for long enough with my right hon. Friend in a different guise to know how committed he, too, is to that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the attempts that we are making to ensure that we have a nation of active citizens rather than those who are consigned to being passive recipients of benefits. That is why we have one of the best records on employment in the industrialised nations and why we have the best record on employment in three decades. We want to ensure that we build on that record.

Tim Boswell: While the general run of new deal programmes is little better, will the Minister acknowledge that less than 25 per cent. of those starting on this particular new deal programme reach their objective of unsubsidised employment? If he were a football manager and his team lost 3–1, would that constitute a success, as he claims, or, rather, a failure?

Chris Pond: We are talking about a group of people   who have considerable barriers to entering sustainable long-term employment. The record in those circumstances is pretty impressive. Nearly 40 per cent. of those on new deal 25-plus have obtained a job while on the programme. We are determined to ensure that still more reach that success. In circumstances in which the barriers are considerable, we are helping people to get over them and get into the long-term sustainable employment that we want them to enjoy, and which I   hope that the hon. Gentleman also wants them to enjoy. However, the solution to these problems is not to scrap the scheme and the help altogether, which appears to be his proposal.

Tom Levitt: In contrast to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), the High Peak area is not traditionally a region of high unemployment. Nevertheless, is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that no fewer than 1,060 people in my constituency have found employment or training through the new deal? It has been valuable indeed. Is he also aware that those people, their families and those who may, unfortunately, have to follow them would be astonished and dismayed if this Government or any other proposed scrapping the new deal?

Chris Pond: Indeed, they would be shocked and astonished to hear that. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done in his constituency to promote the effectiveness of the new deal and the work of Jobcentre Plus, which has delivered that high employment not only in his constituency but across the country. The warning has to go out to my hon. Friend's constituents and others that if this scheme and others were scrapped, there would be no continuation of that success, and we as a nation would pay a heavy price for that.

Employment Opportunities

Win Griffiths: What progress has been made in providing employment opportunities for (a) young people and (b) disabled people since 1997.

Alan Johnson: Our new deal programme is playing a   significant role in achieving record levels of employment. It has helped virtually to eradicate long-term youth unemployment and has reduced long-term adult unemployment to its lowest level for 30 years. Through the new deal, more than 550,000 young people and nearly 200,000 disabled people have been helped into work. For the first time, more than half of all disabled people of working age are in work.

Win Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I pay tribute to all the work done by successive Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions. I   pay tribute, too, to the staff of Jobcentre Plus in Bridgend for all the work that they are doing. Does my right hon. Friend have any information about the success of schemes in my constituency or Bridgend county borough to cheer me on in my retirement?

Alan Johnson: We will all miss my hon. Friend; he has been a terrific Member of Parliament and a great advocate for his constituency. I can send him into retirement blissfully happy with the following statistics about his constituency: youth claimant unemployment is down by 27 per cent.; long-term youth unemployment is down by 81 per cent.; unemployment is down by 41 per cent.; and long-term unemployment is down by   82 per cent. The number of people coming into work from pathways to work is already 10 per cent. higher than it was before the scheme was introduced. That is good news from my hon. Friend's constituency and a great valediction of all that he has been doing over the years.

Nicholas Winterton: I ask a very difficult question of the Secretary of State, but it is to solicit information. Does he accept that colitis is a disability, and would it not make it a lot easier for somebody with colitis to lead a meaningful life, undertake work and be able to take advantage of job opportunities if they were eligible for the blue badge scheme? If he cannot give me an answer today, will he write to me, because this is critical for one of my constituents?

Alan Johnson: I shall try to be helpful. First, are people who have colitis disabled? Yes. Secondly, are   they able to get the blue badge? I am advised by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), who knows much more about these things than I do, that some of them are. I will write to the hon. Gentleman to give him chapter and verse and perhaps to enter a dialogue about how we can resolve any problems that his constituents are experiencing.

Tom Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most organisations of and for disabled people recognise the tremendous progress that the Government have made in encouraging employment for disabled people? Will he now focus on how people with learning disabilities—I   speak as the co-chairman of the all-party group—can achieve their full potential by continuing to work to give them the same opportunities?

Alan Johnson: I accept that my right hon. Friend has accurately expressed the views of the disability lobby. I   accept also that there is more work that we can do for people with learning disabilities. Coincidentally, I have a meeting in my Department at 5 pm tonight to begin a cross-ministerial and cross-Government project to see what we can do about that and other issues.

Vincent Cable: Further to that answer, is the Secretary of State aware of the cruel anomaly affecting people with learning disabilities? If they take advantage of non-means-tested benefits such as incapacity benefit and disability living allowance, they find themselves obliged to pay prohibitive fees to do basic skills courses under the supported learning programme. Will he talk to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills about resolving that failure of joined-up government?

Alan Johnson: I might not describe it as a failure of joined-up government, but I do accept that there is a problem and that there is more that we can do about the particular problems faced by people in the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes. Yes, it is an issue that   needs to be resolved. With continuing investment in the new deal, and as we build on the new deal and some other projects that the Chancellor announced in the Budget report, we can move matters on. The hon. Gentleman has a valid point, which we will take into consideration, and which we are, indeed, working on at the moment.

Gordon Prentice: Is there such a thing as the sick-note culture, and to what extent are doctors complicit in encouraging people to think that they cannot work when they can?

Alan Johnson: I do think that there is such a thing as the sick-note culture. It stems, perhaps, from a cultural issue, as my colleagues at the Department of Health recognised in the White Paper that they published quite recently on public health. Too often, the medical profession has seen itself as needing to protect people from work, whereas, given some of the illnesses that doctors are dealing with, the people who have them would benefit far more from being at work. How do we resolve that problem? We certainly do not do so by Government diktat. We need to work with the profession, as we are, to find ways to solve the problem. We perhaps need to begin by auditing sick notes; prescriptions are audited, but no one has any information on how many sick notes are issued, when or what for. A sea change is happening, however, that unites the Department of Health, health professionals, the disability lobby, the Department for Work and Pensions and, I hope, people on both sides of the House. The way people used to be treated, particularly those with mental illnesses such as depression, really was not in their best interests.

Julie Kirkbride: Does the Secretary of State recognise that if he really wants to promote more job opportunities for young people and to do something about the 1 million young people who have simply disappeared off the register and who are not on the new deal, in work, in training or in education, he must talk to his fellow Ministers about stemming the tide of bureaucracy, paperwork and regulations that actively discourage many employers—[Interruption.] If Labour Members ever talked to employers, they would already know all this. All of that stops employers offering meaningful job opportunities to young people.

Alan Johnson: I do not agree that that problem is created by bureaucracy being forced on employers. What we have tried to do with the new deal and, in particular, with pathways to work is to work with employers to find ways to ensure that they can take advantage of them. There is an economic case for employers as well a social case: they need to find areas of recruitment, and recruiting people who are on incapacity benefit, for instance, is a good way to do that. Some problems about bureaucracy may be raised with us, and we will seek to tackle them, but it has never been put to me by employers as the major reason why they will not employ disabled people. Incidentally, I do not agree with the hon. Lady's figure for those who are   not   in education, employment or training, but we may have another opportunity to raise that before half-past 3.

Pathways to Work

Chris Bryant: How many people have been helped into work by the pathways to work pilot projects.

Maria Eagle: By the end of January, about 12,000 people had found work through the pathways to work pilots. Since pathways to work started, we have helped nearly double the number of people swap a sick note for a pay slip, and six times as many people are taking up back-to-work support through Jobcentre Plus, the new deal or the national health service condition management programmes. The way in which people on incapacity benefit have reacted to the opportunities that pathways offers has been extremely encouraging. Our July Green Paper will set out how we will build further on what we have learned, helping people previously written off as incapable of work and delivering real employment opportunity for all.

Chris Bryant: My constituency has remarkably low unemployment, only a smidgeon above the national level, which is a record for a constituency such as the Rhondda. However, we still have one in five people of working age on incapacity benefit. The kind of project that the Minister has been advancing through pathways to work is therefore particularly important in areas such as mine. We seem to have learned that more employers are saying that it is possible to employ people and that they have jobs suitable for people with mild disabilities and those who would like to work. How can we extend that further across the country so that people even in areas in which a pathways to work project is not yet available can find employment?

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend has been a consistent supporter of the Bridgend-Rhonda Cynon Taff pilot. He might be pleased to know that there have been 2,200 job entries in that area during the existing length of the pilot. He is right in that these pilots provide an education for other stakeholders as well as a job for the people who are leaving incapacity benefit. The pilots bring together both the NHS in condition management programmes and local employers, who often, in tight labour markets, can find excellent new staff whom they might not have thought about employing before this type of help was available in their area.
	As my hon. Friend will know, we are extending the pilots from the current seven areas to a third of the   country, and thereafter, we hope, to the rest of the country. This can only benefit people throughout our country in getting them back to work, when previously they have been completely written off.

Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that whether one has a disability or not, be it mild or severe, the secret of success is driving up the skills level so that the possibility of employment becomes ever greater? Is not the great success of this Government the joined-upness between the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions, which have successfully worked together in harness to drive up skills that provide employment? Will my hon. Friend carry on with that good work? Indeed, I would like one of the pathways projects in my constituency.

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is right in that it is important to bring together improved assistance to help restore the confidence of those who may have been out of work for many years and been told by their doctors that they are incapable of work. One of the interesting statistics about the 12,000 job entries that the pilots have already achieved is that 3,000 of them are for people who have volunteered to join pathways, even though they would not have been obliged or forced to go to work-focused interviews. That is very encouraging.
	In addition to the condition management programme, which can assist people in learning to live with the conditions that have kept them inactive for many years, and which is being taken up with great enthusiasm, there are also programmes like the new deal for disabled people and other specialist disability employment programmes, as well as extra skills training, all of which can do nothing other than help these people get back closer to the labour market. We need to see more of this, certainly not less of it.

Pension Credit

Peter Pike: How many pensioners he estimates are entitled to pension credit and are not receiving it.

Malcolm Wicks: I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend, who I understand may well be retiring from the House sometime within the next 12 months. I pay tribute to his work for the people of Burnley.
	Our own internal statistics suggest that there are now 2.7 million households in Great Britain, including about 5,000 households in Burnley, receiving pension credit. Estimates based on the family resources survey suggest that there are 3.8 million households entitled to pension credit in Great Britain in 2004–05. These figures come from different sources and are calculated differently, and comparisons are difficult. We plan to publish definitive national statistics on take-up and entitlement for the first six months of pension credit by the end of 2005.

Peter Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and also for his kind comments. I know that there is more certainty with the latter part of his answer than with the first part.
	I recognise that the Government have worked very hard to ensure that all older people receive all the benefits to which they are entitled. However, is there not an additional thing that they could do? Many people do not get the help that they need from social services. Has my hon. Friend any thoughts, or is there any intention within the Department, of ensuring that older people not only receive the benefits to which they are entitled, but that they are pointed in the right direction so that there are links to ensure that they get the help to which they are entitled from social services?

Malcolm Wicks: We recognise that often the local range of services and benefits can appear complex for the older person or their carer. That is why through the link-age programme we are developing the notion of joint teams. In 31 areas, social services and our local Pension Service are working together. Those teams will be developed throughout the country within the next year or so. In some areas other agencies, such as the primary care trust or even voluntary organisations such as Age Concern, are becoming part of the joint team. That must be the future in our care for older people.

David Willetts: How many people receive pension credit in future will, of course, depend on how much they save now. Last week the Leader of the House said that the Government would introduce "major legislation" on pensions "sooner rather than later". He went further. Apparently, it will be "really strong, radical, fizzy" and it is "going to surprise people". What did he mean by that?

Malcolm Wicks: There are one or two things to get out of the way in the next few weeks before we anticipate what is in the Queen's Speech. [Interruption.] I am certainly not in the business of anticipating the Queen's Speech—but what I am in the business of anticipating is the fact that on Wednesday the Pension Protection Fund opens its doors for business. There will also be a   new pensions regulator, with teeth, to protect the pension promise. That is a positive achievement by the   Labour Government, and we are proud of it.

David Willetts: But the Leader of the House said:
	"The first session is going to have about 40 bills in it which are pretty well all ready",
	and he referred to pensions as a subject for one of those Bills. If the Government are re-elected, they plan to introduce a pensions Bill, and I would like to know what will be in it. Call me old-fashioned, but I thought that the idea was to announce one's policies before the election so that one could fight the election on them, not to keep them a secret and unveil a Bill after the election. Will the Minister at least rule out compelling people to save and then cutting the tax relief that they receive for their pension contributions?

Malcolm Wicks: I do not know where all that comes from, but I do know that the Opposition declined to give a Second Reading to the Pensions Bill, which set up the Pension Protection Fund and gave new protection and security to more than 10 million scheme members. We are proud of that, but I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman—not that I can ask him, on this occasion—is proud of the fact that he tried to stop it.

Dari Taylor: I am delighted to be called to ask a supplementary question to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for   Burnley (Mr. Pike), who succeeded my father in Burnley. My hon. Friend is loved and respected in   Burnley, and I have never said that before here, so I   am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to do so.
	Women are the major beneficiaries of the pension credit, which has lifted many of them out of poverty. How will it be developed in future, and is there a belief that equality should be a principal factor in determining the way in which women access the basic state pension?

Malcolm Wicks: The issue of gender equality is crucial to our thinking and our strategy, as the Secretary of State has made clear. The pension credit is particularly important for older women. Two out of three pension credit recipients are women, often those without an occupational pension or a state pension. We think that 90 per cent. of single women in the poorest category are taking up the credit, but we want to increase take-up, which is one way in which we can deliver greater equality to women who have served their families and the country so well.

Steve Webb: In the west of England, water bills have risen by more than 10 per cent., and gas and electricity bills have undergone double-digit rises. If those bills are added to council tax   rises, this week's basic state pension increase has already been completely wiped out. The best that the Government can offer is a £200 one-off payment, while stocks last, at Christmas. Those bills will carry on, but that one-off payment will not. Is it not time we had a decent pension?

Malcolm Wicks: As this Parliament wears to an end, I have given up trying to please the hon. Gentleman, because he is cynical about everything that we announce, including winter fuel payments—now at £300 for the over-80s—free television licences for the over-75s, and £200 to help with council tax. We are not cynical about tackling poverty. Absolute poverty among older people has fallen by two thirds. We are proud of that record, and we will continue our endeavours to tackle pensioner poverty in future.

Older Workers

Linda Perham: What steps he plans to take to encourage and help older workers into employment.

Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend has a great interest in this subject, not least as secretary of the all-party group on ageing and older people. Our strategy paper published recently, called "Opportunity Age—Meeting the challenges of ageing in   the 21st century", confirmed our commitment to increasing the employment rate of older people, and our aspiration to move towards an 80 per cent. overall employment rate. Such an employment rate is an international ambition, and will include a million more older workers. In addition to our range of back-to-work help, which includes the new deal 50-plus, we are piloting special support through pathways to work for people claiming incapacity benefit, almost half of whom are over 50.

Linda Perham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but are the Government prepared to bring in measures to enable people to defer their state pension and continue working? Many people would like that choice.

Malcolm Wicks: One of the challenges in the early part of this century is to do away with uniform retirement ages, which treat us all as a mass, rather than as individuals. Changes to state pension can help in that direction. In future, there will be a choice. At the right age people can choose to take their state pension there and then, and many will want to do that, but there is an improved accrual rate for state pension increments, which would mean that if one deferred for five years, one could choose an increase in state pension of around 50 per cent., which would take the full basic state pension to about £125 in current terms per week, or one could take a lump sum of around £25,000. That is the kind of choice that we need to bring into state pensions, and we are doing just that.

Anne McIntosh: Is it not the case that the Government do not like older workers very much? That was the message that was given clearly to public sector workers in the health service and in   education, to the point that they were brought to the brink of a national strike two weeks ago. Will the   Minister explain why the Government's much trumpeted, much vaunted new deal for the over-50s does not apply for the first six months, when it would do more good than at any other time?

Malcolm Wicks: Experience shows that in the first few months of being unemployed, people often find work themselves. Many of the new deals have to focus on those who have been out of work for a longer time. The good news is that the employment rate among those between 50 and state pension age is increasing, and at a faster rate than the overall employment rate—but we are not complacent. Too many people who want to work after 50 are not yet able to do so, and we are determined that they should be able to. That is one of the reasons why we will outlaw age discrimination for next year—which may be good news for some in the House.

Helen Jackson: Most people can look forward to spending a third of their adult life over the age of 65, and therefore as pensioners. Is it not important that each and every one of them should have some dignity and financial security in their working life, so that they can work, receive a pension and undertake voluntary work and a range of other activities in that important one third of their adult life that they will probably spend as pensioners?

Malcolm Wicks: I recognise, sadly, that my hon. Friend too is about to retire—I will not go on too much in this way, Mr. Speaker, or the cream cakes will come round and you will rule that out of order. However, I   pay tribute to my hon. Friend's service. We are seeing how demographic politics will increasingly become a feature of democratic politics. The changing life cycle—whereby people will be preparing for work for 20 or 25 years in education, and also be retired for 20 years, on average, but in some cases for 30 or more years—is a challenge to the House. We need to make sure that that period of so-called old age and retirement is an active one, with educational opportunities, employment opportunities for those who want to move back to the   labour market, and opportunities for service to the community.

Jim Sheridan: What advice or assistance can my hon. Friend offer older workers whose employment is threatened simply for expressing a point of view that is inconsistent with that of their colleagues?

Malcolm Wicks: The rights of workers in that situation, and their choice of—to use a term from psychology—"fight or flight", is crucial. We have always taken individual employment rights more seriously than have the Opposition, which is why, whatever we might say, some of us are feeling rather more secure than some colleagues on the Opposition Benches.

Older Pensioners

Simon Hughes: What estimate he has made of the number of pensioners over 75 years who have no known income other than the state pension.

Malcolm Wicks: Virtually all pensioners over the age of 75 have some income other than the basic state pension. Pension credit means that from 11 April, in a few days' time, no single pensioner need live on less then £109 a week. In 1997, that figure was just £69 a week. That is the difference between the Opposition and us. It will now be £167 for couples, with more for carers and disabled people. As at 31 December 2004, more than 2.6 million pensioner households were receiving pension credit, although updated that would be more like 2.7 million, including 5,000 in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Simon Hughes: The Minister's answers to my question and to earlier questions mean that, according to my calculations, at least 500,000 pensioners over 75 would not receive any more than the basic income, and certainly would not be claiming the minimum guarantee. If that is the case, and some of the poorest people in Britain today are receiving significantly below the poverty line, why have the Government not accepted their argument and ours that we should pay a decent basic pension, and if people are rich because of other income, tax it?

Malcolm Wicks: Because we are not sure how the Liberal Democrat proposals would be funded. Apparently, it would be done by abolishing the Department of Trade and Industry. In addition, although their proposals to focus financial help particularly on the over-75s recognise that the older elderly are the poorest—a truth that we recognise with winter fuel payments and other help—they have taken a trend and exaggerated it into a whole social policy. Those over 75 have incomes of about 90 per cent. of those below 75, and the distribution within the younger elderly and the older elderly is wider than that. In other words, the Liberal Democrats would penalise many poorer pensioners who have the temerity not to have had their 75th birthday card yet.

Hugh Bayley: Is not the benefit that is least well taken up by pensioners not pension credit but council tax benefit? Would it be possible to encourage take-up by requiring local authorities to send every pensioner in their area a form for council tax benefit and for pension credit? Surely that is a way of ensuring that elderly people on low incomes receive the entitlements that the Government have made available to them, which are their right.

Malcolm Wicks: I thank my hon. Friend. We all know the sensitivities around council tax, which is why we are reviewing that area of policy, but meanwhile, with the recent winter fuel payments, we sent out a leaflet to every pensioner about council tax benefit, and we have also supplied from our Pension Service to local councils the names of all those who are claiming pension credit but do not appear to be claiming council tax benefit. That is not enough and we need to do more, because my hon. Friend is absolutely right that, for obvious reasons, council tax benefit is becoming more important, and we   must pursue a higher take-up rate. We are not complacent about this.

Financial Assistance Scheme

David Tredinnick: If he will make a statement on who will be eligible for assistance from the financial assistance scheme.

Malcolm Wicks: I refer to my written statement issued this morning, in which I was pleased to confirm that we have published for consultation draft regulations setting out detailed proposals for the financial assistance scheme. The scheme will be a lifeline for thousands of people across the country, so it is essential to get it right—hence the consultation. We have made provision for surviving spouses of scheme members who were within three years of their scheme pension age on 14 May 2004. I am pleased to announce that those people will be eligible to receive payments from the date of the death of the member, regardless of the survivor's age. The scheme will provide support at 50 per cent. of the member's level of assistance. We are also concerned to make sure that people who when they reach 65 have a long-term illness can receive the financial assistance as soon as possible, and we are working towards that end.

David Tredinnick: But is it not a fact that the financial assistance scheme is payable only at the state pension age of 65, not at the scheme age? That affects thousands of people in the east and west midlands, including some in Hinckley in my constituency, who have early scheme ages. Is this not yet another case of the Government saying one thing and doing something else?

Malcolm Wicks: We are now in a position to have a proper conversation—hence the consultation—about the details of a financial assistance scheme, because this Labour Government have said that we will have such a scheme. Similarly, we can discuss the fine details of the   Pension Protection Fund. Why? Because despite opposition, we now have a Pension Protection Fund. We looked very carefully at having a financial assistance scheme funded by the taxpayer, and we thought on balance that it was right to have one specific age at which the money would be paid—65. As for eligibility, we have said that those within three years of their scheme-specific retirement age will be eligible. It is a matter of judgment and balance, but I am pleased that we are now putting an end to the scandal whereby workers in this country who worked hard for their companies and families and contributed to their pension scheme saw it all go down the drain when a company went bust. We are putting an end to that, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support that endeavour.

Andrew Miller: If the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) does not want his constituents to benefit from the scheme, please can that benefit be transferred to my constituents, who are absolutely delighted with the scheme? Will my hon. Friend ensure that there is some publicity at an early date about contact points for people making technical queries about eligibility, because in some cases there has been a loss of information flow between the scheme and scheme members and their families?

Malcolm Wicks: Obviously, we have been in communication with hundreds of schemes. We also have a website where people can look up the current developments for themselves. It is important that we not only establish the financial assistance scheme, but publicise it, and we are doing that.

Nigel Waterson: The Minister recently told The Independent newspaper:
	"With the £400m, we are confident we can meet the 80 per cent. for those nearest retirement. And then we've got the Spending Review."
	Does that not show that the Opposition have been right all along to say that the £400 million in the FAS is woefully inadequate and will be swallowed up by the 15,000 claimants who are at or near retirement? What reassurance can he give to the many thousands of other workers who have also lost their pension rights?

Malcolm Wicks: It would be nice to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but sadly I cannot do so. He was wrong when he advised his party not to give a Second Reading to the Pensions Bill. If people had listened, we would not have a Pension Protection Fund that is the long-run answer to this question. Sadly, he was wrong to be cynical, as was the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr.   Webb), who said that there would never be a financial assistance scheme. We have set up that scheme and we are now working on the details. We thought that it was right to focus help on those approaching retirement age, and we will consider the finances in the next spending review.

Jobcentre Plus/New Deal

Ann McKechin: If he will make a statement on the role that Jobcentre Plus and the new deals will play in delivering his future employment policies.

Alan Johnson: Our active labour market policies and the help provided through Jobcentre Plus and the new deals have played a key role in delivering the record employment rates that we have today. We are building on this success by completing the Jobcentre Plus programme, thus ensuring that, across the country, people who can work can take advantage of the job opportunities available.

Ann McKechin: I, too, welcome the very large cuts in unemployment in my constituency, but as my right hon. Friend will be aware, there are still many people in my constituency and throughout Glasgow who are not economically active, but do want to work. They will require a lot of training and support to do that. Does he agree that, rather than cutting programmes and scrapping services, the Government must remain committed to focusing their policy on ensuring that those people are given the opportunity to enter the work force?

Alan Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to do more, not less. We need to put in more resources, not fewer resources, and we need to ensure, for instance, that the measures set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget statement are taken forward. That was focused on 16 and 17-year-olds, whom we need to give a new offer based on the success of the education maintenance allowance, broadening the approach to ensure that, in this age group in particular, no young person does not have access to education or, if they are in work, to training and skills enhancement as part of their job. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an area where we need to do much more.

New Deal (North Yorkshire)

John Grogan: if he will make a statement on the impact on employment levels of the new deal in North Yorkshire.

Maria Eagle: The new deals have had a positive impact on employment levels in North Yorkshire, with more than 11,000 people helped into work, including more than 1,400 people in my hon. Friend's constituency. The evidence shows that a combination of economic stability and the help provided through Jobcentre Plus and the new deal has played a key role in delivering the labour market success story that we see today.

John Grogan: In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, will my hon. Friend commend the comments of North Yorkshire Tory Councillor Carl Les, who recently said this about the council's latest new deal scheme:
	"This is a win-win initiative, which is bringing real benefits at a very local level, whether through support to people who are trying to get back into work or through improvements to village greens."
	What advice can my hon. Friend give to Councillor Les to ensure that that win-win scheme continues long, long into the future?

Maria Eagle: I am amazed to find myself agreeing with a Conservative—and my advice to that Conservative councillor is that he should join the Labour party. It is excellent that people see the real strength and importance of the new deals and the difference that the new deals can make to areas such as North Yorkshire at a local level, and it is a pity that that Conservative party does not see that too.

Public Sector Pensions

Tony Lloyd: What discussions he has had with trade unions on public sector pensions.

Alan Johnson: Last Thursday, I chaired a summit with representatives from relevant public sector unions and Brendan Barber of the TUC on public sector pensions. The meeting was productive: both sides recognised the   effect that demographic changes are having on the sustainability of pension schemes, and are committed to finding an agreed long-term solution that is both fair and sustainable. A proper process of discussion and negotiation will take place through the continuation of scheme-specific negotiations, which will be overseen by special sessions of the public services forum.

Tony Lloyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his role in making sure that the Government and the other partners in public sector pensions, which are far too important for decisions to be made on the hoof, returned to meaningful discussions. Meaningful and proper negotiations are surely the right way forward, if we are to modernise public sector pensions in the light of the challenges, which my right hon. Friend has outlined, posed by an increasing elderly population. It is important that we develop a consensus between the work force and the Government, who act sometimes as an employer and sometimes as a regulator. After the election, will my right hon. Friend invite those of his opposite numbers who are still around to join that search for a consensus? This matter should be taken way beyond party politics.

Alan Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend on the need for consensus. We seek consensus in that area and in all areas of pensions, as we pointed out in our document, "The Principles for Reform: The National Pensions Debate". It is fair to point out that although the trade unions and their members had a legitimate claim that the negotiation was not a proper negotiation—the Government were saying that some areas were not open to negotiation, which was wrong—we have now made it clear that all areas are open to negotiation. We should make it clear that we will continue with the defined benefit scheme and index-linked pensions, and that no existing staff will be affected until 2013 at the earliest. Those parameters and that reassurance must form part of the political consensus that my hon. Friend rightly seeks.

Full Employment

Adrian Bailey: if he will make a statement on his Department's progress towards achieving full employment.

Maria Eagle: We have made good progress: by ending boom and bust economics, making work pay and promoting active labour market policies, we have achieved the highest employment rate of the seven major industrialised countries and one of the   highest employment rates in our history. We are determined to move forward towards our ambition of employment opportunities for all. Our five-year strategy sets out our long-term aspiration of an 80 per cent. employment rate, which would smash all employment records and give us the highest employment rate of any major country.

Adrian Bailey: I thank the Minister for her reply. My constituency historically had high unemployment, but since 1997 that has dropped by 41 per cent. and about 860 people have got jobs through the new deal. Recently, I was approached by a local civil servant who was concerned about speculation that there might be cuts in the Jobcentre Plus programme and the impact they might have on future Government employment policies. Can my hon. Friend give me her reassurance that under this Government, those cuts will not take place?

Maria Eagle: Under this Government we are extending the help we give people to ensure that unemployment comes down further. The only parties committed to cutting the new deal and privatising Jobcentre Plus are the Opposition parties.

Right Hon. Lord Callaghan KG

Tony Blair: Jim Callaghan died during the Easter recess just a day before his 93rd birthday. Many present and former Members, and from all sides, have already paid warm tribute to someone who was a Member of this House for 42 years and the only Member of Parliament ever to hold the four great offices of state. But those tributes, from political allies and foes alike, do not simply focus on his remarkable career. They talk, rightly, as much about his personal qualities—about his decency, honesty and integrity, his friendship and loyalty.
	Many of the tributes also touched on Jim Callaghan's devotion to his family and in particular to Audrey, his wife, who died just 11 days before him. He had nursed her through a long illness. His marriage to her was a thing extraordinary and humbling to witness: a genuine, deep and abiding love that never wavered, never dulled through good times and bad, but burned true and full even as they grew old and frail. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our sympathy to Michael, Margaret and Julia and the wider family on the loss of both their mother and their father.
	In Jim Callaghan's case, one could not separate his achievements as a politician from his qualities as a man. Many times over the past 10 years, I had reason to seek his counsel. Each time, he gave it with a rigorous approach to the problem in hand, objective advice as to how to resolve it and an utterly unswerving commitment to the country and to the political party he served.
	Jim Callaghan's life almost spans the history of the entire Labour party. It was the Labour party's values of social justice, solidarity and opportunity for all that brought him into the party and he worked tirelessly throughout the whole of his life to put them into action.
	Jim Callaghan was brought up by his widowed mother and had known hard times as a child. Indeed, he used to recall the difference the pension provided by the first Labour Government had made to their family's life. He left school at 16 to become a clerk in the Inland Revenue—perhaps the only one in history to climb the ladder so far that he became First Lord of the Treasury. But perhaps because he always regretted not having had the chance to go to university, he was passionate throughout the entirety of his political career about spreading the benefits of education as widely as possible. In 1976, his Ruskin college speech on education was the   first by a Prime Minister to recognise the central importance of education to Britain's future and the need to educate well not a few but all the country's children. I hope that that lives on in this Government's commitment to education today.
	Jim Callaghan was also one of the generation who fought in the war and came back determined to build a better, fairer and different Britain, one at peace with our neighbours. He was a real patriot, but thanks to his experiences of the war, never confused patriotism with narrow nationalism. Britain was, of course, still at war when he was adopted and then elected as Member of Parliament for South Cardiff. He continued to serve that constituency and the city with great pride and affection for 42 years and took its name for his title when he went to the other place.
	When Jim Callaghan began his career in Parliament, it was not long before his talents were recognised by the   great reforming 1945 Labour Government of Clement Attlee. Two years after he was first elected, he was appointed Parliamentary Secretary for Transport. I   confess that, until recently, I was not aware of the fact that, in his first ministerial post, he was responsible for introducing both zebra crossings and cat's-eyes on trunk roads. Those are lasting achievements of which most junior Ministers in any Government, of whatever persuasion, would be envious. He was also proud to have been a member of a Government who, among their many achievements, created the national health service.
	When Labour lost power, Jim proved himself an effective performer in opposition. He had a rapid rise through the ranks, being elected to the shadow Cabinet and then to Labour's ruling national executive. His calmness under pressure, his easy manner and his ability to think quickly meant that he was a good performer not just in the House, but on the new medium of television. His long period as shadow Colonial Secretary strengthened his commitment to the Commonwealth and to the developing world and he forged many friendships there that have stood the test of time. I know that he would have been delighted at this Government's work on debt relief and with the Commission for Africa.
	From 1964 onwards, when Labour was returned to power, Jim went on to hold the four great offices of state over the years to come. He served in each with distinction, but in each he was also severely tested. As Chancellor, he inherited an economy badly out of kilter with an overvalued pound and record balance of trade deficits. When he was forced eventually to devalue, he insisted on resigning from the Treasury.
	As Home Secretary, Jim inherited the deepening crisis in Northern Ireland and it fell to him to send in the Army to help protect the Catholic minority. He handled the worsening situation with great calm and confidence, which only increased his standing in the party and, indeed, the country. It was also on his watch as Home Secretary that Parliament abolished for good capital punishment for murder—an example of his determination to build a more decent and a more civilised society.
	As Foreign Secretary from 1974 to 1976, Jim fought and, indeed, won a referendum on Britain's membership of the Common Market. Though by no means a natural enthusiast, he was convinced by the evidence that it was in Britain's strong national interest to be at the heart of Europe.
	All those trials and tests were preparation for when Harold Wilson stood down as party leader and Prime Minister in 1976 and Jim was elected his successor. He threw himself into the job with characteristic courage and commitment and, indeed, he needed all his personal qualities to hold together both the party and a parliamentary pact with the Liberals—a tribute to anyone's patience.

Menzies Campbell: He was good at it.

Tony Blair: He was indeed good at it.
	As Prime Minister, Jim became a figure, even as the difficulties mounted, viewed with respect and he brought an earthy common sense and determination to do right to all that confronted him. In many ways, despite the problems, it was the office to which he was best suited. If he had been given time, Jim Callaghan would have made not just a good Prime Minister, but a great one.
	Finally, after almost three years, most of it without a Parliamentary majority, the Government were defeated. The margin of defeat was just one vote and it says a great deal about Jim Callaghan that, even though he knew how close the vote would be, it was on his express instruction that a desperately ill Labour Member of Parliament was not ordered down for the Division.
	By the time that I arrived in the Commons in 1983, Jim Callaghan was no longer leader but a respected Father of the House. He later sat in the other place, where he continued to make telling contributions to   debates on subjects close to his heart—including, of course, the power of education to transform lives. I   know how important it was for him to see Labour back in power again and how delighted he was with this Government's programme of economic stability and social justice combined together.
	Kenneth, now Lord, Morgan makes the point in his   recent biography that Lord Callaghan in many ways   personified the history of post-war Britain, the challenges and its successes. He also embodied, as a man and as a politician, the essential and enduring values of fairness, compassion and solidarity. He will be sorely missed, but as Jim Callaghan himself said in his memoirs:
	"In the Labour Party, it is now the task of a new generation . . . to reconcile individual freedom with the general welfare, to settle the limits of the state's reach, to grapple with and overcome racial discrimination and to assist the great mass of poor people who make up the world's population to free themselves from poverty and ignorance".
	Those are the goals to which, in his memory, we, at least on this side, rededicate ourselves today.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, I would like to pay my own tribute to Lord Callaghan.
	When I first entered the House in 1979, he was extremely kind and helpful to me, as he was to all new Members of Parliament. That kindness and support was always there, even when he left the House of Commons and was elevated to the House of Lords. He will be missed by a great many Members of this House.

Michael Howard: May I associate myself with the Prime Minister's generous tribute and join him in offering my sincere condolences to Lord Callaghan's family?
	Jim Callaghan was universally respected. The warmth of the tributes that have flowed over the past week from across the political divide, all corners of the United Kingdom and elsewhere bear testimony to that. All who met him spoke of his personal qualities, dignity, warmth and humanity, and those who had never met him knew of him in the same way. He will be remembered especially fondly in Wales. There he was an adopted son, having served Cardiff in Westminster for 42 years. All who doubt where his loyalties lay should reflect on the words of his biographer: when England played Wales at rugby, Jim Callaghan referred to Wales as "we". That is good enough evidence for me.
	As the Prime Minister said, Lord Callaghan had the distinction of being the only holder of all the great offices of state. As such, he had a profound influence on the course of the political life of our nation across the entire latter half of the 20th century. His modest background and growing up during the depression fuelled his approach to politics. His period as Home Secretary saw   him take the difficult decision to send soldiers to Northern Ireland. As Foreign Secretary, he helped to   renegotiate the terms of entry into the then European Economic Community. As Prime Minister, he launched a debate on education that many credit with leading—eventually—to the introduction of the national curriculum.
	Lord Callaghan was brave in standing for his own beliefs. In fact, one of his first actions in government was to resign as a Parliamentary Private Secretary over the American loan agreement in December 1945. One of his last actions as an active politician was to speak out against unilateral nuclear disarmament at a time when that was far from fashionable in his party. He always had a willingness to learn. On becoming shadow Chancellor, for example, he quickly recognised the need to take a course in economics at Oxford.
	It is fair to say that Lord Callaghan's premiership took place, to adapt the allegedly Chinese proverb, in interesting times. He had to grapple with serious questions, such as the role of trade unions, Britain's economic decline, the search for peace in Northern Ireland and the issue that eventually forced the election in 1979—devolution. None of those was unique to his Administration because the same issues were faced by Governments both before and after his. They were long-term problems with no short-term solutions. Other Governments would need to tackle them over the years   that followed. In some ways, Lord Callaghan foreshadowed the prescriptions that would follow, too, not least in his famous 1976 Labour party conference speech warning of the perils of countries spending their   ways out of recession. His Administration can be regarded as a watershed and his prescient comments before his defeat, acknowledging a sea change in domestic politics, showed that he foresaw what was to come.
	It is remarkable that, even during and after that defeat, Lord Callaghan never lost his personal popularity. Recently he won praise from unlikely quarters. Baroness Thatcher called him a formidable opponent who could best her across the Dispatch Box and Lord Tebbit called him "warm and approachable". He was widely seen as having a shrewd political instinct while retaining both common sense and a common touch. He was an excellent negotiator—by no means an insignificant attribute given the challenges of his time. He was a patriot and from the last generation to have served in the war.
	As the Prime Minister said, Lord Callaghan was a family man, in deed as well as word. He cherished the company of not only his children, but especially his grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Of course, he was devoted to his wife Audrey. It is a bittersweet testimony to that devotion that he died just 11 days after she did.
	It was perhaps characteristic of Lord Callaghan that he was said to remark that one of his proudest and most lasting achievements—to which the Prime Minister has alluded—was, as a junior Transport Minister, the introduction of cat's-eyes on our roads.
	Loyalty to principle, decency, humanity, sincerity: these are the attributes for which Lord Callaghan will be remembered and he will be sadly missed.

Charles Kennedy: It is a privilege to associate myself with the very proper expressions of condolence from the Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative party to the relatives of the late Lord Callaghan.
	I can certainly echo what you said a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker. All three of we party leaders were elected to this House in 1983, and Jim Callaghan was the Father   of the House in that Parliament. In those days, I happened to be the youngest Member of the House, and he was very avuncular to me in both image and reality. As Father of the House, he took time to show me around the House of Commons Library, to introduce me to the Officers and staff and to do things that, frankly, he did not need to do, but which he none the less took it upon himself to do. That was the nature of the man, and a very fine man he was, too.
	In an age in which most of us have had the opportunity of some form of tertiary education, it is remarkable that, as recently as the late 1970s, a man who did not have that opportunity—and who was keenly conscious of those who also did not have that opportunity—was able to rise to the great offices of state and to the ultimate office: that of Prime Minister.
	The Prime Minister referred in passing, perhaps unnecessarily pejoratively, to the period of the Lib-Lab pact, and I want seriously to echo the reflections of one of my predecessors, Lord Steel of Aikwood, on his dealings with Prime Minister Callaghan during that period. Despite all the difficulties—the precariousness arising from the lack of a parliamentary majority and the obvious issue of party self-interest, but the need none the less to build majorities in the Division Lobby and to ensure the continuing governance of the country against a very difficult economic backdrop—David Steel found that Jim Callaghan had an acute sense of the overriding national interest, which he was willing to elevate above and beyond sectional party interest. That is a good example for us all.
	Jim Callaghan was a member of a most remarkable post-war generation of politicians in this House, which also included people such as Sir Edward Heath and the   late Roy Jenkins. Tempered as they were by the experience of war, they were determined to build, at home and internationally, a better world order than the one that they experienced during that terrible and tumultuous period.
	Our sympathy obviously goes to Jim Callaghan's immediate family, but we are grateful for the remarkable example of decency and consistency in public life that he undoubtedly set.

Tam Dalyell: Never, ever, was a parliamentary nickname more inappropriate: "Kind Jim", "Thoughtful Jim" and yes, "Calculating Jim", but not "Sunny Jim" by any stretch of the imagination. He was extremely kind, as has been said, to new Members, and I go back to the 1958 Labour party conference in Scarborough. It was my first conference and I found myself in the unenviable position of moving the first composite motion on the first morning. No one could have been more thoughtful towards an extremely nervous parliamentary candidate. Indeed, Chris Price, the elder brother of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and I had our proverbial hands held by Jim Callaghan at that time. Not only that, he went out of his way to introduce young members of the party to his many contacts in the developing world. As has been said by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, he certainly had many extremely close friends in the developing world.
	When I was elected to the House, the other by-election candidate—many will remember Jeremy Bray—and I were asked within a couple of days to go and see the shadow Chancellor in his room. He said that had been told by Sara Barker, the legendary national party agent, that we were both excellent by-election candidates. Then he looked at us and said, "Of course, in my experience, Sara's swans turn into geese." That was Jim. Jeremy then proceeded to give the shadow Chancellor a lecture on econometrics as only Jeremy Bray could.
	Jim was a thoughtful man. I am the last Member of the House of Commons who had to stand at the Bar of   the House to face Mr. Speaker putting on his black cap to administer a formal rebuke, after I was "done over", shall we say, on Porton Down, by the Privileges Committee. Jim Callaghan first said that he did not take part in blood rituals and was not going to vote for what was, after all, a Speaker's motion when he was Home Secretary. Secondly, he summoned me when I was in adversity: he called me a chump, but no one could have been kinder. It is the experience of Roy Hattersley and many others of our generation that Jim was extremely thoughtful and kind whenever there was trouble.
	In 1969, I wanted to go to Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) will remember the incident. Being a courteous person, I   let the then Minister of State in the Home Office—Welsh Members will remember him as Elystan Morgan—know that I wanted to go to the troubles of Northern Ireland. I received one of those pink slips, but it was not from Elystan Morgan but from the Home Secretary, inviting me to go and see him forthwith.
	I waddled across to that long sepulchral room in the Home Office and there was Jim Callaghan sitting at his desk. He looked up and said, "I hear you want to go to Northern Ireland. What do you think you can do for the good of the Northern Irish that I cannot do as Home Secretary?" He was quite good at reducing his colleagues to a watery laugh. After that, he went on to explain that in no way was he going to have his faithful Parliamentary Private Secretary, the late Gregor Mackenzie or any Scot in Northern Ireland. He would depend on Roland Moyle, whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) knows very well was, along with Merlyn Rees, Roger Stott and others, part of the Callaghan praetorian guard. Jim Callaghan certainly gave great loyalty to those who were loyal to him.
	I also think of Jim's courage. In 1972, I went to his flat in south London after he had had a prostate operation. He took the view that he would probably not come back into central politics again. However, the courage and determination that drove him all his life ensured that he did come back—and, indeed, as Foreign Secretary in 1974.
	Jim Callaghan was complex. I was the chairman of the Labour party's foreign affairs committee when he was Foreign Secretary. I used to see him every Wednesday night. Sometimes I would say to him, "As a senior member of the Cabinet, what are you going to do about all these problems concerning Scotland, the Scottish Parliament and so on?" "Oh," he said, "Don't trouble me with that nonsense. Tell me what the party thinks about Cyprus." He was a consummate politician, because when the Scottish problem erupted the Prime Minister took a somewhat different view.
	In 1986, I was invited by a Welsh constituency Labour   party to speak about intelligence and security. I accepted and, being a courteous man, I let the local Member of Parliament know. The response was an invitation to go to tea with Jim and Audrey at their Cardiff flat. I asked him how I would get from his flat to the meeting. "Oh," he said, "I'll take you." I said, "Jim, you are not coming to the meeting are you?" He said, "I   always go to my constituency party meetings." He took me and I have never quivered so much in my life. I   said to him, "You were only Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister. Why are you not talking on intelligence and security?" He smiled sweetly and said, "They never ask me," and added, "I am curious to know what you are going to say." I have many happy memories.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister paid tribute to Jim's faithfulness and great esteem for Audrey. The last time I was on the phone to him some months ago he simply said, as he did to many other people, "I've got to go because I am due to go and see Audrey." I salute both of them.

Peter Tapsell: I am grateful for the chance to say a few words. I knew Lord Callaghan for 46 years—exactly half of his long life—and I join the Prime Minister in his comments about the warmth and fine character of Jim Callaghan. It fell to him, as the then shadow Colonial Secretary, to reply to   the debate on central Africa in March 1960 when I made my maiden speech. In his winding-up speech he said some characteristically pleasant words about my maiden speech and subsequently wrote me a charming letter of congratulation. That was typical of his kindness and I had many examples of that during the long years that followed.
	I have had the privilege of listening to 10 Prime Ministers answering questions and Jim Callaghan, in the extraordinarily difficult economic circumstances of his premiership, was the ablest of the 10 at answering Prime Minister's questions.
	I want to give a little vignette, which is intended to be of historic interest and not controversial. When Hugh Gaitskell was unexpectedly taken ill and his health tragically deteriorated almost unbelievably, it was reported that he was suddenly gravely ill. It so happened that I was lunching that day at the Carlton club. When I arrived, Harold Macmillan, who was then Prime Minister, was sitting alone at the members' table, as he often did—perhaps twice a week—but not always alone. He beckoned me over, so I went and sat next to him and said that it looked as though Gaitskell might be dying. Those were the days when party leaders were interested in what Back Benchers had to say—[Laughter.] He asked me whom I thought the Labour party would choose to succeed Gaitskell. I said, "Well, the three names that are being mentioned as front runners are Harold Wilson, George Brown and Jim Callaghan." To which Macmillan replied, "If they've any sense, they'll elect Callaghan, because he is much the best man they've got."

Alun Michael: Many of the things that have been said about Lord Callaghan will be treasured by his family and many friends.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr.   Dalyell) has already referred to the way in which   Lord Callaghan always went back to his constituency and to the party. In 1987, I inherited a   constituency Labour party that was used to being addressed each month by the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the   Prime Minister. As I said at the time, "Follow that." Until I had been here for a while, however, I did not realise that the help that I received as a constituency MP from my predecessor was not the universal experience of all my colleagues. Nobody could have been kinder or more helpful than Jim.
	For Jim, the people of Cardiff, South and Penarth came first. As Foreign Secretary or as Prime Minister, he always asked the question, "What are people saying in Splott, Llanrumney, Penarth and Grangetown?" I was privileged to sit in on surgery sessions as he dealt with   the individual and community problems of people in the constituency and in sessions with his agent, Jack   Brooks—now Lord Brooks of Tremorfa—and with Gordon Houlston, the chair of the constituency party, as he probed the local issues and linked them to his national and international perspectives. His love and care for the people of the constituency is still reflected in their deep and abiding affection for him.
	One anecdote sums it all up for me. Jim was introduced to the great Joe Erskine, the boxer from Butetown. "I'm delighted to meet you," said Jim, "You're a hero of mine. I've always wanted to meet you." Joe said, "We've met before, Mr. Callaghan." "Oh," said Jim, "I don't think we have. You've been my   hero. I would have remembered." "No," said Joe Eskine, "Do you remember taking a group of children from St. Mary's school in the docks around the House of Commons? I was 11 years old at the time, and you shook my hand as we left." Jim then said wryly, "You should always remember and be careful how you speak to 11-year-old boys. You never know what they are going to grow up into."
	Jim never forgot his people in his constituency and they loved him for it. After standing down as MP, he continued to work for us, supporting the development of Cardiff bay and helping us to find the right design for   the new building for the National Assembly for Wales.Audrey, who died 11 days before him, was loved and celebrated in her own right, as a campaigner on children's issues as well as Jim's constant companion in his visits to the constituency.
	Those who accuse MPs of being remote or detached forget that we return to our constituencies regularly to respond to individual and community concerns and to   hear directly from the people. Nobody could have possibly encapsulated that essential relationship between the parliamentarian and the people more perfectly than Jim Callaghan and his relationship with the people of Cardiff, South and Penarth. He provided a model that we should all aspire to follow. May he rest in peace.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I on behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party associate myself fully and sincerely with all the tributes paid this afternoon? They have been full and generous, and deserved in my view and that of many people outside the Chamber.
	As the Prime Minister said, the late Jim Callaghan did not have the benefit of a university education, but none the less held all four major offices of state. That is no mean achievement. His life is an inspiring example of social mobility. His achievements were the result of his   abilities and not of privilege, birth or family background. We believe that we must fight to maintain the possibility for other people to be inspired by his example and to achieve as near as possible what he achieved in his full life.
	May I associate myself with the tributes to the family? There will be a great loss throughout Wales, not just in Cardiff. A square in Cardiff has already been named after the late Lord Callaghan. That is a fitting tribute, and I have no doubt that there will be others.
	A great loss will also be felt across the political spectrum. My predecessor, Dafydd Wigley, had many discussions with James Callaghan and his Administration in 1974. Those culminated in compensation for quarrymen and miners affected by dust, and eventually to the inception of the Welsh language television channel, S4C. He was, to coin a phrase, a man you could do business with. He was certainly a man of his word. He also had a very human side to him, as recalled by Dafydd Wigley recently, and was often hurt by criticism, particularly from his own side.
	Lord Callaghan was a major figure in British politics. He will be sorely missed. He also had a good grasp of the art of surprise in choosing the date of a general election—an example that we might follow today.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Jim Callaghan cared desperately about the House of Commons and other things that are important to me, because for him the Labour party was the fount of many of his commitments not only to moral political views but to changing the role and quality of life of those whom he felt he represented. He was a clever man, and one who was frequently sadly underestimated. Although he had warmth and wit and could display them, he nevertheless had an intellectual toughness that enabled him frequently to survive very real pressures.
	Jim Callaghan knew that the Labour party and, above all, the House of Commons needed to represent that which was decent, honest and fair. His commitment to that desire for equality remained the centrepiece of his life, no matter which of the Houses he served in. He had, of course, a wicked sense of humour. He stopped me in the Lobby on one occasion and said, "Would your mother like to be the first woman Lord Lieutenant of London?" I said, "I should think she'd be like a cat with two tails," and he said, "It's secret. You can't tell anybody. And anyway, she was the very first person I   thought of." There was a slightly pregnant pause, and   then he said, "Well, no, that's actually not true. I   thought of dozens of people before her."
	Jim Callaghan worked closely with my family, and he and my father had some good old rows, but he did something that is, perhaps, underestimated: he kept together a very large political party that always represented many strands of the people of the United Kingdom. He kept together his faith in parliamentary democracy. He put his commitment to this House, above all, at the very forefront of everything that he did. He served this country well. He loved and served his family well. We are honoured to have known him.

David Burnside: On behalf of the Ulster Unionist party and, I am sure, of all Ulster Members, may I add my words to those of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Members?
	The Prime Minister referred to the one connection that most linked Jim Callaghan to Ireland—that fateful August in 1969, when the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, James Chichester-Clark, requested the troops to come in to halt the anarchy developing on our streets throughout the Province—but one other instance, which I noticed in the obituaries, should be highlighted further.
	At a much earlier stage, Jim Callaghan, on behalf of the Labour party—not the Government—went to Northern Ireland and visited the old Northern Ireland Labour party, which was strong in Belfast, and the old Republican Labour party. It was no different from the Labour party in the great industrial cities of the north of England or in Scotland or Wales. He tried to develop the Labour party organisation as a normal Labour party organisation standing for election throughout Northern Ireland, as it was throughout the rest of the UK.
	With the benefit of hindsight and looking back over history, I wonder whether the Conservative and Unionist party and the Liberal party—as it was then—would still be organised in Northern Ireland had the   Labour party been successful in organising from the working-class areas of Belfast and the non-sectarian trade union movement in the old great industries of Belfast. I wonder whether the past 30 years in Northern Ireland might have been slightly different. It was Jim   Callaghan who went across, much earlier, on behalf of the old Labour party, to organise Labour in the Province. He will be greatly missed. He was a great gentleman in politics.

Jack Cunningham: I had the honour and the pleasure of serving as James Callaghan's Parliamentary Private Secretary throughout his time at the Foreign Office and during his first year as Prime Minister in 10 Downing street. I came to know him very well in that time, of course, but I recall that earlier, when I barely knew him at all, the first time that I heard him speak was when he made his last speech as Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Labour party conference in the autumn of 1967. I think it was the last Labour party conference held in Scarborough. Jim was expounding the difficulties of trying to grapple with the manifest economic problems of the time, and in almost an aside said, "Take the banks," and a wag from the delegates section said, "We wish you would." He recovered from that hilarity and went on to make a speech about how grave were the circumstances of the British economy, but I do not think that too many people were convinced.
	When I was elected to this House in 1970, I had met Jim only a couple of times and was sitting in the Members' Dining Room with some contemporaries when a message came to me that Jim would like me to become his Parliamentary Private Secretary. Of course, only the grandees in opposition had a PPS in those days.   I said that I would like to think about it, and the messenger, Gregor Mackenzie, said, "I wouldn't be taking too long if I was you." [Laughter.] Forgive the attempt at a Glaswegian accent.
	I accepted. Some of my friends said, "Jack, you must be mad. Jim Callaghan is yesterday's man. He's over the hill." Well, he was so far over the hill that two years later he became the Foreign Secretary in the Wilson Administration. He took me to the Foreign Office with him; he took me, literally, all over the world, to Africa, Europe, the middle east, the United Nations and the Cyprus peace talks. It was an enormous learning curve and a great apprenticeship. His kindness, generosity, support and advice were legendary.
	I recall that, one new year's eve, we were in Zambia, staying near Victoria falls, and Jim insisted on paying for a dinner and a party for the whole party from the   Foreign Office, including the secretaries. He then insisted on us all singing "Auld Lang Syne". He shook hands with all the men and kissed all the ladies. As our Zambian hosts were watching this, I said to him, "What do you think they make of all this?" He said, "Well, they probably think these ancient national customs are all very well, but are we fit to govern ourselves?"
	Just when I thought that it was probably time for me to change, Harold Wilson resigned as Prime Minister, and Jim appointed me as his campaign manager. I think that it was one of those elections where, if the candidate won, it was of course all down to the candidate's merits, and if the candidate had lost, it would all have been the fault of the agent. Fortunately, we had a winning candidate. I then went off to work with Jim in 10 Downing street, another huge learning curve for me. Again, his personal support, his advice, his courage and his commitment were simply fantastic. During those years, I also came to know Audrey and Jim's family very well. I offer my sincere condolences and those of my family to Jim's family on the tragic loss of their mother and their father in such a short space of time.
	Jim Callaghan brought to the premiership vast, unparalleled experience of Government and of Parliament. He was a dedicated servant of the country, deeply patriotic and committed to the well-being of the nation as a whole, but throughout his time in that high office he remained a faithful servant of this House.
	I believe that history will treat Lord Callaghan with great kindness. He will be remembered as a giant of the post-war political era, leading his party and the country through some tremendously difficult and challenging international and national situations. Sadly, although he had himself been totally dedicated to the trade unions and the Labour party, some trade unions and some sections of the Labour party failed to learn the obvious lessons of the difficulties that the country and the party faced. Those organisations and some individuals certainly contributed to the downfall of his Government. He deserved a better fate. His wisdom, courage, generosity and personal friendship taught me a great deal about politics, government and this place. I shall always remember him with the very greatest of affection.

Nicholas Winterton: My tribute will be very brief but very personal. Jim Callaghan was approachable, kind, decent and a very human individual. An illustration of those qualities is all I want to give. During the years when he was Prime Minister, Macclesfield high school for girls won the BBC's "Top of the Form" competition, beating the   Newark grammar school for boys. It was wonderful, and what displays the interest that an excellent Prime Minister had in education was that he invited the two finalist teams to Downing street for the presentation of their awards and to join himself and Audrey for tea.
	I had been in Parliament just a few years, then, and I   have to say that it was a Labour Prime Minister who   invited me to Downing street, together with the late Ted Bishop, who became Lord Bishopton and with whom I had a close relationship. I was given very generous and personal hospitality by the Prime Minister of this country and his charming and utterly delightful wife, Audrey. Even more than that, however, the teams and myself were shown all the wonderful rooms in Downing street, including the Cabinet room. I had never seen those facilities under a Conservative Prime Minister, and I have, perhaps, in other ways, too, benefited from a Labour Prime Minister.
	I pay my tribute to a man whom I found utterly delightful and utterly decent. He was a man who will not   only be missed but who, rightly, will be long remembered.

Julie Morgan: It is a great privilege to have this opportunity to pay tribute to Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, known to everyone in Cardiff as Jim. My memories of Jim are very personal.
	I worked for Jim in the first general election campaign I was involved in back in 1964, in what was then Cardiff, South-East. I was a postal vote canvasser employed by the Labour party for the princely sum of £5 a week during my holidays from London university. That gave me a taste for politics, and it was an exciting and stimulating time. I got to know Jim and Audrey and their three children very well, and it was a privilege to know the whole family.
	Although Jim had been a Member of Parliament since 1945, in the previous election Michael Roberts, who later became MP for Cardiff, North—my seat—had reduced his majority to less than 1,000, so there was great anxiety that Labour might lose Jim, who was seen as a cornerstone of the party. We all knew that if we had a Labour Government, we would need someone like Jim   as a steady hand on the tiller. If we put up old age pensions, as we did, and if there was a run on the pound, we would need somebody like Jim to be there. He was seen as very important, as a very experienced politician. In that election campaign we all went all out to get him elected.
	I pay tribute to Jim's support and encouragement for young people. The campaign in 1964, in Cardiff, was dominated by young people. It encouraged many of us to get involved in politics and to make it our lives. In that campaign there was a future leader of the Labour party, Neil Kinnock, who is now Lord Kinnock, as well as Glenys Parry, now Glenys Kinnock and a Member of the European Parliament. We were all together in the campaign. There was also Rhodri Morgan, now leader of the Welsh Assembly. I can thank Jim Callaghan very much for bringing us together at that time.
	I have two very personal memories of Jim from that time and from that successful election campaign, and they have been referred to already. One was his passion for university education. Jim did not have a degree but he thought that it was so important to encourage other people to obtain one. I was at university in London at that time. The election date was set for October 1964, four days after the start of the university term. I had been totally absorbed in the election campaign the whole time. Jim kept telling me that I must go back to university, whereas I thought that the most important thing was to be present to see Labour win Cardiff, South-East and to see the success of the future Chancellor of the Exchequer, so we had a big battle of wills about whether I should return to university.
	The other issue that he felt passionate about was   getting rid of the widows' earnings rule. This meant that widows who worked would no longer have their   widows' pension cut. Jim's mother was a widow. I   believe that he was 10 years old when he lost his father. Jim knew what it was like to be brought up in tough circumstances. I was in a similar family with a widowed mother. The change in the widows' earnings rule that Labour brought in had an immediate effect on my family's circumstances and showed why we needed a Labour Government and why we needed Jim in that Government.
	I remember Jim for his passion on those two issues in particular. Coupled with his passion was his ability to get things done. Jim was a practical politician. He was very dependable and determined. He was a huge asset to the Labour party and to politics in general. His passing is a huge loss to the Labour party and to Cardiff.

Simon Hughes: It is a privilege to add a word or two. My family moved to Cardiff when I was eight. I can testify, as Lord Callaghan's successor has done, to the admiration in which Jim Callaghan was held in Cardiff among my school friends. He was known and loved, as was George Thomas, and that is unusual among politicians. I   remember that at my Dad's bottling stores on the Penarth road, everybody knew him and respected him.
	I admired him from afar when Jim Callaghan was Prime Minister. After what was by any definition, as colleagues in the House will remember, an uncomfortable by-election in 1983, which I won, he was courteous enough after my maiden speech, when he sat behind me, to be generous in appreciation and offering me his support. For all of the time until he died, he kept with his family a house in my constituency. I canvassed it at every election, more out of courtesy than out of any great hope, and conscious that peers are not allowed to vote. As Jim Callaghan, Denis Healey and Merlyn Rees all lived in the same part of the borough, it was not surprising that it was the last ward to fall to my colleagues and me when gradually we won wards from the Labour party. Jim Callaghan always gave advice, he was always courteous and he was always friendly. I was always grateful to have that experience, as someone who came to politics much later than he.
	My borough offered him the freedom of the borough. Jim's son gratefully received it on his behalf, as he was not well enough to come at the time. On a cross-party basis, we honoured him. I share the appreciation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) for what Jim Callaghan has given the country, and for his patriotism. I share the wish to send condolences to his family.
	I can encourage right hon. and hon. Members: it is not only in the female line that Jim Callaghan's political interests have been sustained. His son is still reminding the politicians on the other side of the river that there are jobs to be done, and is still politically active in the local community. We are grateful not only for Jim Callaghan but for the Jim Callaghan legacy.

David Clelland: I just want to add my brief personal encounter with Jim Callaghan to   the tributes. I came to the House of Commons after a by-election in 1985, and I made my maiden speech on   what became the Public Order Act 1986. I was immediately drafted on to the Standing Committee, where the Opposition were led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who kindly decided that on Report Members who had served in Committee should move their amendments at the Dispatch Box. After only a few months in the House of Commons, I therefore found myself moving Opposition amendments at the Dispatch Box. After moving one amendment and filing into the Lobby, I felt a hand on my shoulder. I turned round and saw Jim Callaghan, who said, "Was that you at the Dispatch Box?" I said, "Yes, sir, it was." He said, "Very good. Don't let them move you on." That was kind of him, and it only confirms what has been said about his generosity to new Members. Unfortunately, his words of wisdom were not passed on to the powers that be, but they confirm that, above all, he was a very kind and decent man, and he will be sadly missed.

Barry Sheerman: May I add a brief footnote, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I first met Jim at the 1979 general election when he came to speak at Huddersfield town hall. As the new candidate, I was asked to chair the meeting, and I remember the awe in which I held him. When I entered Parliament, he was very kind. I got to know him extremely well, and I   also got to know his family very well. In those days, four of us shared a room on the East Corridor, and next door was a room occupied by the former Prime Minister. I saw a lot of Jim—he would pop in, and he got to know my children, as they would pop into his room. I would see members of his family coming along the corridor, and got to know many of them.
	Jim was exceedingly kind, and I shall give two illustrations. I was working on a book with an American co-author on Professor Harold Laski. I interviewed Jim about his knowledge of Professor Laski, who was a major figure in the 1930s and 1940s. Many Members have said today that Jim regretted not having a university education. That is true, but when I researched the book, he told me, "You know, being in the war was like being at university in a strange way. I read more than most undergraduates read in their three or four years." He told me that Harold Laski wrote to him wherever he was in the world—remember what a dangerous thing he was engaged in, being at sea in the war—encouraging him to return to the London School of Economics. However, Jim was elected to Parliament and never gained that university degree.
	I shall conclude on a caring note. Every five or 10 years, the Labour Members of the 1979 generation have an anniversary dinner. The last time, on our 25th   anniversary, Jim sent a lovely note to say that he could not make it, but he usually came. Ten years ago, he said that he had a guilty conscience about us. He said, "I call you my lost boys, because I lost the 1979 general election and put you into opposition for 18 years." That shows the thoughtfulness of a man whom I will always remember. I thank God that I knew him, and that I had the benefit of many hours in his company.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill [Lords]

[Relevant document: The Third Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2004–05, on the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill [Lords], HC 234.]
	Order for Second Reading read.

Don Touhig: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	It might it helpful if I begin with a few words setting out the background to the Bill. The local government commissioner for Wales—commonly known as the ombudsman—the health service commissioner for Wales and the Welsh Administration ombudsman have all served the citizens of Wales well in the past, but each office operates under different legislation with separate staff, which inhibits the development of a coherent service that would reflect the ways in which public sector service delivery in Wales is evolving.
	Today there is increasing emphasis on the provision of services through partnerships between different public bodies, securing better services more efficiently. But if a person is not happy with some aspect of a service provided, it may not be easy to identify which of several public bodies is responsible, and therefore to which ombudsman a complaint should be submitted. It might even be that different aspects of the same complaint would have to be considered by different ombudsmen. The Bill will address that and allow a properly integrated ombudsman service for Wales to be created.

Win Griffiths: My hon. Friend mentioned that three offices are to be brought together. He will know that the local government ombudsman is based in my constituency, Bridgend. Has any thought been given to where the new ombudsman will be located? Bridgend would seem to be a very good place.

Don Touhig: That will not be my responsibility, but my hon. Friend's comment will no doubt have been noted.
	The ombudsman will be known as the public services ombudsman for Wales. The Bill has been carefully developed over the past couple of years. In 2002, a consultation entitled "Ombudsmen's Service in Wales: Time for Change?" sought views on the principle of bringing the three offices together into a unified service led by one person. The unanimous support received for that proposal led to a second round of consultation in 2003 on the detailed powers and jurisdiction of the new office. That was entitled "A Public Service Ombudsman for Wales: Powers and Jurisdiction".
	Together, those consultation exercises provided us with the foundations for the Bill before the House this afternoon. They also allowed the Government to take advantage of an opportunity that arose when all three offices simultaneously fell vacant to appoint a single individual to hold all three offices. That proved a useful interim step to achieving the longer-term objective of a unified office. As a result, Mr. Adam Peat holds those three offices now, but he continues to operate under legislation that applies to each separate office that he holds. That is wholly unhelpful. The Bill addresses that.
	The Bill has already been the subject of consideration in another place. As a result, it has benefited from a number of amendments, including important changes on appointments to, and the tenure of, the ombudsman's office. The Bill has also been considered by the Welsh Affairs Committee, which held evidence sessions jointly with the Assembly's Local Government and Public Services Committee. Both Committees issued their reports on the Bill on 21 February.
	Along with the Assembly's Minister for Finance, Local Government and Public Services, Sue Essex, I had the opportunity to give evidence to the two Committees. I am grateful to them for their detailed consideration of the Bill. Although they raised a small number of issues for further consideration, both Committees were generally very supportive of the Bill and its provisions, and considered it to be a comprehensive and well thought-out piece of legislation.
	I now turn to the Bill itself. The legislation applicable to the three offices needs to be rationalised and brought together into a coherent whole, if the benefits of a unified office are to be achieved. The Bill is therefore about creating a coherent jurisdiction, administered by a team that is already working increasingly effectively together, but which now needs the backing of a sound legislative framework. The Bill will bring together the offices of the Commission for Local Administration in Wales, including the local commissioner for Wales, the health service commissioner for Wales, the Welsh Administration ombudsman and, when it is established later this year, that of the social housing ombudsman for Wales, into a unified jurisdiction led by one person—the public services ombudsman for Wales.
	The Bill will provide a modern, flexible and accessible service for members of the public who wish to complain about most public service providers operating in, or in relation to, Wales. I say most public service providers because services delivered under the auspices of the Government which are not devolved matters in Wales—for example, social security—will not be within the remit of the public services ombudsman for Wales. They may,   however, be subject to the jurisdiction of the parliamentary or health service commissioner. However, that is an exception to the general principle that, in respect of public services on which people in Wales rely in their daily lives, the new ombudsman's office will provide a single channel for receipt and investigation of complaints of maladministration or service failure. So local government—within which we include community councils—health bodies, the Assembly itself and its sponsored public bodies, are within, or may be brought within, the new ombudsman's jurisdiction.
	The Bill provides powers for the National Assembly, for example, to amend the list of bodies within the   ombudsman's jurisdiction to reflect changes in the structures of government in Wales. It gives the   ombudsman important consistent powers of investigation across a range of bodies within his remit. It also allows him to seek to resolve disputes between complainants and the relevant public bodies without the need for a formal investigation. That is a new provision for the Welsh ombudsman, but it is one that has been generally welcomed. The parliamentary and health service commissioner has commented that this provision is "welcomed as long overdue" and will
	"enable the Welsh Ombudsman to have the explicit ability to facilitate the resolution of complaints by any means appropriate to the circumstances of each complaint".
	Another new provision is the power, previously available only to the local government ombudsman, to issue guidance to all bodies within his jurisdiction on the requirements for good administrative practice. This provides a mechanism to enable all parts of the public sector to learn from the experience of particular authorities that may have been the subject of complaint and investigation. Public bodies need to regard complaints as a basis for improvement, and the ombudsman's guidance should assist in that.

Nigel Evans: Will the ombudsman have the power to consider, for example, planning delays by all 22 unitary local authorities to find out which is doing the best and which is doing the worst, and then to issue guidance on best practice, so that the worst have to follow the practices of the best?

Don Touhig: Such guidance would probably not be within the ombudsman's remit, but depending on the issues that he is asked to investigate he will make reports that have a similar impact.
	The Bill also provides powers to permit the ombudsman to work jointly with other specified ombudsmen, including the parliamentary commissioner and health service commissioner for England, in relation to complaints or parts of complaints over which the new Welsh ombudsman and another ombudsman have jurisdiction. That might arise, for example, in the case of cross-border complaints. Cross-border provision of services, particularly in the health field, is not uncommon for Wales and England, and the Government have sought to facilitate joint ombudsman investigations to cover precisely that situation.
	A particular provision that I should draw to the attention of the House is that concerning the   ombudsman's jurisdiction in health and social care matters. Nowadays, we take a holistic approach to the provision of health and social care. The Bill as introduced in the other place provided, in line with   existing ombudsmen legislation, that the new ombudsman could not generally question the merits of a decision taken without maladministration. However, the Bill did provide that the ombudsman could question the merits of any decision taken in consequence of the exercise of clinical judgment, irrespective of whether it was taken with maladministration. That reflected the existing provision of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993.
	The Government reflected on whether it was right or appropriate that the ombudsman should be able to question the merits of a decision taken only in the exercise of clinical judgment—that is, by a doctor—but not decisions, for example, of social care professionals who may be part of the same team delivering a health and social care package to an individual. We concluded that there was no reason to differentiate between decisions taken in consequence of clinical judgment and the judgment of, for example, social care professionals in this context. The Bill therefore makes express provision to ensure that, in health and social care matters, the ombudsman can look synoptically at complaints about the consequences of decisions made by social care professionals who are working alongside clinical colleagues. For example, the ombudsman could consider a complaint that had arisen about a multi-disciplinary team's decision to discharge a patient from hospital on the basis that the patient's remaining health and social care needs would be provided at home by the relevant health and social care professionals. In that example, the decision to discharge the patient and the decision to provide further care at home are dependent on each other and might well form the basis of a single complaint. Under clause 11, the merits of the decisions can be questioned by the ombudsman, whether they were taken by health or social care professionals, or both.
	I am sure that colleagues will want to enter into the debate. I think all will agree that this is an immensely worthwhile Bill, which will give Wales a first-class ombudsman service for the 21st century.

Tony Wright: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Don Touhig: I commend the Bill to the House. I regret that it was too late to give way.

Bill Wiggin: I am sorry that the Minister did not have a chance to give way; I am sure that the intervention would have been most interesting.
	The Bill is commendable in its objective of establishing one public service ombudsman for Wales,   replacing three separate offices for Welsh administration, the health service and social housing. I   hoped that the Government would find time for the Bill, and I am glad that we have finally been given the   chance to debate the improvements that need to be made to the legislation. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that that chance has been squeezed into the same day as our important opportunity to debate Welsh affairs. With our so-called St. David's day debate and Second Reading of this Bill packed into one day, it is a shame that the Government cannot afford Welsh business priority on their agenda.
	We welcome the Bill as a measure with potential to improve the standard of public services for the people of   Wales. We also welcome the rationalisation of ombudsman services in Wales. This is an opportunity to define clearly and uniformly their jurisdiction and powers, which must be a benefit. Yet there are still details that must be tackled if we are to secure what I am sure we all want—only the very best for the people of Wales. I only hope that the Government will act on our suggestions to improve further the deal that Wales will get from the Bill.
	It is somewhat worrying that the explanatory notes highlight the fact that there will be initial set-up costs, borne by funding from the Assembly. The notes also warn in paragraphs 115 and 116 that it is prudent to plan for a modest increase in resources. I hope that the Government remember that this is Welsh taxpayers' hard-earned money, and that a rationalisation of the Wales ombudsman service will involve economies of scale. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us that the initial set-up costs will be minimal, and give us some indication of when the savings that should result from this move will actually be seen.
	The Minister should also confirm the details of the situation underlying clause 5 and requirements about complaint to the ombudsman, as set out in subsection (1)(b). While a line needs to be drawn in the sand, it is feasible that a one-year time limit on making a complaint to the ombudsman could be difficult for some people to meet. It could take longer than a year for a situation warranting a complaint to the ombudsman to develop. We need further clarification of when notice of matters alleged in the complaint is deemed to begin. If that happens when the complainant suffers a problem that they bring to the attention of the authority, it is possible that ensuing correspondence from the authority could drag on for longer than a year. Perhaps the Minister will substantiate the precise details of the clause and reassure us that the ombudsman's discretion will always apply.
	We must also be certain that cross-border issues are sufficiently dealt with in the Bill. Thankfully, we see provisions to ensure that there will be no gap in ombudsman jurisdictional coverage for bodies such as   regional flood defence committees. Similarly, I am pleased to see provisions in clause 25 for consultation with other ombudsman services. The Government must ensure, however, that cross-border issues are sufficiently provided for in proposals for interaction between all UK ombudsmen.
	The Bill comes to us already considerably improved by the actions of my Conservative colleagues in the House of Lords. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Roberts of Conwy. With regard to the appointment of the ombudsman, which is dealt with in schedule 1, an amendment tabled by Lord Roberts led to the inclusion of the provision that the Secretary of State must consult the Assembly before recommending a person for appointment as the ombudsman. A similar insertion has been made regarding the Assembly's role in the process of appointing an acting ombudsman. That has cured inconsistencies in respect of the appointment and removal of the ombudsman, removing the confusing situation whereby he could not be removed without consulting the Assembly, but could be appointed. That move will clearly assist in securing a more accountable and impartial appointment. Since the ombudsman will   be financially and practically dependent on the Assembly, it is only sensible that the Assembly should play some role in his or her appointment.
	The proposed length of the ombudsman's appointment is of greater concern. Certain concessions have already been made as a result of pressure in the House of Lords, reducing the term of office from 10 years to seven years. That is, of course, preferable, but it is not sufficient, and it is far from the best deal for the people of Wales.
	The Welsh Affairs Committee stated that a reduction in the length of the ombudsman's tenure from 10 years to seven years would not improve the Bill. It agreed with Conservatives in the other place, who proposed a far more sensible, renewable five-year appointment. A seven-year term would still be long, and such guaranteed longevity would not provide the ombudsman with the best circumstances in which to operate.
	Several concerns were raised in the other place about a five-year term. The objections that a five-year term is   too short, that it would not attract top-quality candidates and that it could affect the ombudsman's decisions towards the end of his term are particularly cynical.

Nigel Evans: If that point about the appointment of the ombudsman is true, what does it say about people who seek election to this place? Hon. Members are appointed for up to five years—invariably some of us are appointed for less time than that—so I can see no reason why five years should not be the period.

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A renewable five-year period is ideal. It would keep the incentive alive, while ensuring that proper performance was key at all times.

Hywel Williams: I am sure that the   hon. Gentleman does not want inadvertently to misrepresent the views of the Welsh Affairs Committee. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) will confirm that the majority of witnesses thought a 10-year appointment appropriate. The Committee said that if the Government want to take another course, the five-year term is a way out.

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) is right that I would never want to misrepresent the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I   was a member. I draw his attention to page 9 of the Select Committee report, which states in bold:
	"we recommend it reconsider appointments on a five year basis with the possibility of reappointment for a further five years."
	I have not misrepresented the Committee. However, we recognise that concessions were made in the other place and that the term is currently seven years.
	I hope that an ombudsman who is likely to be influenced by the prospect of not having his term renewed would not be appointed to begin with. Other ombudsman appointments across the UK are generally not for a fixed term. The Scottish public services ombudsman is appointed for five years, with the opportunity of reappointment, which is the system that we would like to apply to the Welsh ombudsman. Under our proposal, those who consider a 10-year term most appropriate would still achieve that objective, yet the ombudsman would also be accountable at the halfway stage.
	In seeking a balance between an accountable and flexible term of office and the need for stability, a renewable five-year length of tenure is by far the most appropriate way to proceed. The Welsh Affairs Committee is not the only body to have agreed that point; a recently published report on the Bill by the National Assembly's Local Government and Public Services Committee recommends that
	"the bill be amended to make the Welsh Ombudsman's term of office five years with the ability to reappoint for a further five years."
	The opinions of those who have debated this issue in the other place, in Select Committee and in the Assembly are clear. Now the Government must accept that a renewable five-year appointment is far preferable to the proposed seven-year tenure.
	The Government should not change the amendments introduced by Conservative peers in the other place, which would reverse the progress that has been made. Thanks to Conservative pressure in the Lords, clause 20, "Non-action following receipt of a report", will ensure that an authority cannot defy the ombudsman and disregard his report without lawful excuse. That move is extremely welcome and will considerably improve the   standard of ombudsman services in Wales. That the ombudsman can, in the last resort, seek the view of the   High Court gives him legal power that will remove any possibility of his decision being ignored by the authorities involved. I hope that the Bill, complete with the stronger position of the ombudsman for which our colleagues in the other place have fought, will prevent such occurrences, which have, sadly, been known.
	Clause 21, on alternative reporting procedures, has also been greatly clarified. It is now clearer that the   ombudsman, the authority and the complainant must all agree to the period within which the listed authority agrees to implement the ombudsman's recommendations. However, the ombudsman has the authority to specify a period in writing if no other agreement can be reached, which will greatly empower him in such situations.
	Furthermore, thanks to the probing amendment of my noble Friend Lord Roberts, the disqualification of   the ombudsman from holding certain responsibilities has been clarified. We welcome the elucidation in schedule 1 on the disqualification of the ombudsman from being a Member of the Assembly. Previously, it appeared that the Assembly could resolve that such disqualification be disregarded, which evidently smacked of preferential treatment. However, the amendment has greatly clarified the situation. We accept that the Government of Wales Act 1998 already deals with the event by saying that an ombudsman may be elected an Assembly Member provided that they relinquish the office of ombudsman once they are elected.
	We also welcome the clarification of the extent of excluded matters in schedule 2. The provisions on educational bodies relating to which authorities are excluded are extremely helpful. Misinterpretation that might narrow the ombudsman's jurisdiction in relation to other authorities is now unlikely, and the Bill provides clear descriptions on the subject of the parameters within which the ombudsman can act. That is commendable and has been further improved by the clarifications secured in another place and by the Committee.
	The greater powers allowed to the ombudsman as a result of amendments in the other place are a considerable asset to the Bill. First and foremost, it is our wish that the Bill improve the treatment of those who make a complaint of maladministration in Wales. The Government must guarantee that the progress already made will in no way be jeopardised by amendments at this stage. I remain concerned that the Government will attempt to back out of the advances made as a result of Opposition pressure in the other House; for example, they may attempt to reverse the controversial decision to give the ombudsman legal options—the power to apply to the High Court. I am sure that the Minister will want to allay those fears in his closing comments and I shall be grateful to him for doing so.
	Another issue brought up in the other place was documentation. Despite the problems experienced at Westminster in keeping track of certain Assembly documents and publications, the Government refused amendments that would ensure that we were kept informed of the ombudsman's reports. Rationalising the ombudsman service should be a good thing. Nevertheless, there are still a number of proposals, and improvements could be made before we pass legislation that truly delivers the very best for Wales.

Martyn Jones: The Bill is the latest piece of Welsh legislation to be scrutinised by   the Welsh Affairs Committee. My Committee not only undertakes pre-legislative scrutiny where possible, it also scrutinises Bills that are already under consideration by Parliament. That is an important task, which we take seriously.
	The role of Select Committees is to offer criticism of the Government where it is warranted and praise where it is deserved. In the last Session, we scrutinised the clauses of the Children Bill that affected Wales. It is no secret that we were unhappy with provisions that had an impact on the Children's Commissioner for Wales and we published a report to that effect. This debate gives me the welcome opportunity to highlight a report that welcomes a good piece of legislation.
	My Committee's report, which is a relevant document for the debate, welcomes a Bill that has the potential to provide a modern, flexible and accessible service for members of the public. In its current form the Bill represents good legislation, but the Committee's report recommends several amendments that would make it even better.
	As we have heard, the Select Committee's scrutiny of the Bill was carried out in partnership with the Local Government and Public Services Committee of the National Assembly for Wales, and we took advantage of our power to hold formal joint meetings to take oral evidence. The first evidence session was held under the Local Government and Public Services Committee's procedures at the National Assembly on Thursday 13 January, and the second evidence session was held under our procedures on Monday 17 January. Although our joint working powers do not extend to the publication of a joint report, our report and that of the   Local Government and Public Services Committee made recommendations along similar lines.
	Joint formal working offered the opportunity for us, as Committees, to scrutinise both the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly Government on legislation that would directly affect Wales. It was a success, as we could question both Governments from the dual perspective of the legislators and the implementers of that legislation. Despite that success, formal joint working has been permitted only on an experimental basis until the end of this Parliament, so I look to the Minister to reiterate his positive view of formal joint working, and I hope that he will give a commitment to make those powers permanent in the next Parliament, if he has the power to do so. If he does not have the time to give such a commitment in this debate, I will offer him a second bite of the cherry in the next debate on Welsh Affairs, when I will return to the issue if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	As we have heard, in its original form the Bill set the length of the ombudsman's tenure at 10 years, which was subsequently reduced by the other place to seven years. We were not convinced that the reduction in the length of tenure added to the Bill's quality. Although I   recognize the fact that some peers were concerned that 10 years was too long, seven years is not long enough in our collective opinion. For that reason, my Committee recommended that the length of tenure should be five years, with the possibility of reappointment for a further five years. I believe that the five-year plus five-year appointment plan, which is used for the Scottish ombudsman and thus has the benefit of consistency, represents a better balance between the need for stability in post and the need to reinvigorate the office periodically. It also offers opponents of a 10-year appointment a statutory moment for reflection.
	The Bill sets out all those authorities that may be subject to investigation by the ombudsman. Individual community health councils are included in that list, but the Board of Community Health Councils is not. When we took evidence from the board, it argued that it should be subject to the same scrutiny as individual councils. That is probably the first time that a witness before my Committee has argued for greater scrutiny of themselves, so I feel obliged to say that we should adopt that view and argue in its favour. Including the Board of Community Health Councils in the list of authorities is a sensible recommendation and I hope that the Government will look favourably on it.
	My Committee also looks in its report to the   Government to provide further information on the possible overlap between the ombudsman's responsibilities with respect to an authority's failure to comply with its obligations to the Welsh language and the Welsh Language Board's responsibilities. Although that is not a fundamental problem with the Bill, greater clarity would significantly assist the working relationship between the two institutions.
	The final issue to which I wish to draw the House's attention is that of co-operation between the English and Welsh commissioners. The Bill, as currently drafted, will remove the power of the ombudsman in England to transfer cases to the Welsh ombudsman. Although the Bill contains many provisions to facilitate joint working between ombudsmen, we believe that the retention of that power is necessary. There is nothing to   be gained by the removal of that power. Close working relationships between the Welsh and English commissioners are to be welcomed, so I look to the   Government to retain in the Bill the power of the ombudsman in England to transfer cases to the Welsh ombudsman. I hope that, with those provisos, the Bill will find favour in the House.

Roger Williams: We on the Liberal Democrat Benches also welcome the Bill in its broad context. No doubt there is a greater understanding in Wales that people can complain to ombudsmen if they believe that they have been the victim of an injustice or if an authority has committed maladministration in carrying out a service of which they are in receipt. There is confidence in Wales in the various ombudsmen's work, but complications and misunderstandings can arise because people can complain to so many ombudsmen. No doubt if people complained to the wrong ombudsman they would be advised to go to the right office to make their complaint. However, simplicity and clarity are important when people are dealing with public services because that gives them confidence, so we welcome the fact that a single ombudsman will be set up, to whom the Welsh people can take their complaints about public services.
	Having been a member of a local authority, I know that there was initially mistrust of the ombudsman process, but as time went on people looked at ombudsmen's rulings for guidance and ways of improving services. It has been especially noticeable that ombudsmen not only make decisions about specific cases, but give advice about how authorities should set about improving their ways. The Bill provides that an authority will not be able to ignore the ombudsman's decision without due cause. That is a big improvement because nothing is more discouraging to complainants whose cases are investigated by ombudsmen than for local authorities or services to ignore recommendations that are made.
	I, like other hon. Members, am disappointed that the   Government cannot accept that the term of appointment for the ombudsman should be five years, with the possibility of a five-year reappointment. I   understand that it should be possible to have a 10-year appointment period so that people with the necessary quality and commitment have the incentive to apply for   such an important job. However, if the initial appointment were made for 10 years, it would represent a commitment to a person that might not be entirely appropriate. There should be a break point after five   years to allow reflection and scrutiny of the ombudsman's work so that it can be determined whether there should be a reappointment. Posts often need re-energising so that new commitment and perhaps a different direction can be achieved, so I am sad that the recommendation of a five-year appointment has not been adopted. Seven years is a halfway period, but the Bill does not provide the opportunity for reappointment, so that provision has all the faults and none of the virtues.
	I am pleased that the Government say that the process will be cost-neutral, but I would be even more pleased if they said that savings could be made. There must be an opportunity to make economies of scale, and thus bear down on public expense, during the process of bringing bodies together. However, I understand that there will be set-up costs and I do not complain about them, because they are bound to arise.

Bill Wiggin: I was a little disturbed earlier when the   hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asked where the ombudsman will be situated. We do not know one of the key elements of the relocation cost because we   do not know today where the ombudsman will go. Does the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) agree that we are thus writing a rather open-ended cheque?

Roger Williams: Yes. The process would be more transparent and open, and we could scrutinise the costs that will be incurred during the set-up, if we knew how it will be managed and how and where the new ombudsman and his staff will be physically housed. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
	I shall come on to my last point because I think that we agree that the Bill is good and should go ahead, although we could make some improvements to it. I   represent a constituency on the English-Welsh border, so I know about the complexities of the health system that serves some of my constituents. I am pleased that the Bill will give the ombudsmen the power and duty to work together. I cite the example of constituents who live in Wales and are served by a general practitioner practice in England. Such people might go to a community hospital in Wales, but be transferred to a district general hospital in England.

Nigel Evans: Clearly that could happen. There was an announcement today about Welsh prescription charges. If people living in Wales go to an English GP, will the GP be able to issue a Welsh prescription at a lower cost, or will those people be told, "I'm sorry; I can only issue English prescriptions, so you'll have to pay the higher rate even though you live in Wales"? Would that be something that the ombudsman could look into?

Roger Williams: I am afraid that I cannot answer on that matter on the Assembly's behalf, but such a situation could generate a number of complaints to the ombudsman.
	We have welcomed this Bill from the start. Some improvements have been made and more could be made if the Government had the will to do so, but all in all we support this legislation.

Tony Wright: I apologise for intruding, very briefly, into discussion of a Welsh Bill. I   remember that you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, used to sit on the Select Committee for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration many years ago, and while you have gone on to dizzying heights of parliamentary significance, I am still worrying about the same kind of issues that we worried about some 10 years ago.
	I want to say something about this Bill, which is excellent on all counts, because it does the kind of things in Wales, and for the people of Wales, that many of us have been pressing for in England for some time. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary described all the benefits that integrating the different complaints systems would bring to people in Wales who want to   make complaints against various bodies. Those arguments have been used in England for a number of years in arguing for greater collaboration between the local government ombudsman and the parliamentary ombudsman; indeed, an official review of the whole system recommended such modernisation. So it is extremely pleasing to find that modernisation is marching ahead in Wales, with all the benefits that my hon. Friend described. But it is therefore slightly puzzling that it has not been possible to make equivalent progress in England, despite all the preparatory work that has been done, and despite recommendations from successive ombudsmen in England that the same progress should be made.
	So although this is an excellent Bill for Wales, in so far as it shows the benefits of devolution, one such benefit is that it enables mutual learning and stimulus for reform across the whole United Kingdom. I therefore simply urge my Welsh friends to urge on their English colleagues, to the maximum extent that they can, a similar will to reform the system, so that the benefits described for Wales today can be brought to England, too.

Hywel Williams: My hon. Friends and I also welcome the Bill and the unification of the   four ombudsmen: the Welsh Administration ombudsman, the health service commissioner for Wales, the Commission for Local Administration in Wales, and the social housing ombudsman for Wales.
	When I was a child, I used to enjoy taking my bicycle to pieces, and I remember that if I came across a recalcitrant nut—I am not looking in any particular direction—I used a wonderful liquid called "3-In-One". Here we have "four in one", and I am sure that it will prove just as efficacious in ensuring people's rights. The people of Wales are likely to be much better off as a result of this Bill, and better served by establishing this ombudsman, which is a very positive step forward. A means of redress outside the normal procedures is an essential mark of good government, and the services that the current ombudsmen have provided for the people of Wales are fine testimony to their commitment to providing ordinary people with a way to challenge—and, indeed, to beat—the official machine.
	The Welsh Affairs Committee was able to examine this Bill jointly with the Local Government and Public   Services Committee of the National Assembly for Wales. Indeed, we heard evidence from the Under-Secretary, and I had the pleasure of asking him questions in Welsh—that does not happen that often—and of receiving very fair answers. We produced a report and it was published in February. It could be that I have been remiss, but I have not yet seen any reply from the Government. I am sure that the Chairman and other members of the Committee are looking forward to that   reply, as there are a number of points in the recommendations that the Government should answer.
	One issue has already been raised in our earlier debate and the Committee's recommendations on that matter repay very close reading. With your permission, Mr.   Deputy Speaker, I will read the recommendation in full:
	"There appeared to be a general level of agreement in the House of Lords that a seven year period of appointment was appropriate. However, that was not the views and experience of our witnesses, who considered a ten year appointment as appropriate."
	That was the view of the witnesses. It continues:
	"We recommend that the Government reconsider its decision to reduce the length of tenure of the Ombudsman in the light of our evidence."
	Thirdly, the recommendation mentions an issue that the   hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) referred to earlier:
	"Should the Government believe that a balance needed to be   made between security of tenure and the opportunity to re-invigorate the office, we recommend it reconsider appointments on a five year basis with the possibility of reappointment for a further five years."
	The Committee is thus making a threefold point in its recommendation and I look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary clarifying the Government's response.
	Finally, I want to mention briefly the eighth recommendation, which deals with the Welsh Language Board. There is a possibility of people's complaints falling through the cracks between the Welsh Language Board and the ombudsman. We have received reassurances that that will not happen. In fact, the Welsh Language Board submitted written evidence on the possibility of developing a protocol between it and the ombudsman. I am sure that that would provide a way of dealing with that potential difficulty of complaints regarding the Welsh language falling down the cracks.
	I was gratified that in the evidence that we received from the ombudsman—it is set out in page 54 of the evidence—it was made clear that failing to adhere to a   Welsh language scheme could of itself be viewed as a matter of maladministration. That point was confirmed by the Welsh Language Board's evidence later. Welsh citizens will be given a further opportunity to look for redress, which I believe will be valuable. With those few words, I look forward to debating the Bill in Committee and to hearing the Under-Secretary's response.

Nigel Evans: I, too, look forward to debating the Bill in Committee, but I am not certain when that Committee will meet. If all the rumours are true, the Prime Minister will be on his way to the palace by tomorrow and I suspect that the Bill   might not get the scrutiny in Committee that it otherwise would have received. From what I have heard in the Chamber so far, it is clear that there is a general consensus that the Bill should become an Act. I certainly heard what the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony   Wright) had to say about the Bill's applicability in Wales, but not in England. We led the way with the Children's Commissioner for Wales and England subsequently followed, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait too long, under the next Conservative Administration, before the good effects of the Bill are rolled out more widely.
	I assume that with four bodies being reduced into one, it means that four quangos are being reduced to one. It could be argued that this is the bonfire of the quangos, but I am not sure whether the Government are going to sell the Bill in that way. Quite frankly, it is a common-sense measure.
	Much has been said about the appointments, and I   want to comment on the appropriate length of service in the post of ombudsman. I was joshing with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) that with a five-year appointment there might be a danger of not getting the right people for the job, but that is the   term for which we are elected as Members of Parliament, so I am not sure whether we get the right people for the job. Perhaps the Government are trying to argue for an extension of Parliaments to seven years, as under the Septennial Act 1715. The President of France serves a seven-year term—[Interruption.] It has been reduced to five.
	There are pros and cons. A seven-year term is probably sensible if, as the schedule states, the ombudsman cannot then be reappointed, but if we want the post to be reinvigorated, there is merit in having a five-year term renewable for a further five years. However, if a seven-year term could be extended to 14 years that would be too long because there will be a lot of work for and a lot of pressure on the ombudsman.
	I am pleased that the ombudsman can be removed only on grounds of ill health or misbehaviour because that provides independence and if they decide that they want to be critical, perhaps of the Government, they   must have that independence so that they are not always looking over their shoulder in case the Government decide to remove them from office. Independence is absolutely necessary.
	Paragraph 3(5) of schedule 1 states that the ombudsman can be removed only after consultation with the Assembly. Does that mean that the Assembly will be told that the ombudsman is being removed for misbehaviour or ill health, or will the Assembly have an input in the decision?
	On disqualifications and ineligibility to become the ombudsman, paragraph 5(1)(a) of schedule 1 states that   a Member of the House of Commons cannot be   appointed, but that leaves open the possibility of a Member of the House of Lords being appointed. Have the Government thought that through? A Member of the House of Lords could have parliamentary, Government or Executive influence.
	The Bill states that the ombudsman will be unable to   comment on policy, and that is appropriate. Governments are elected to create policy and, whether the ombudsman likes it or not, it is up to him or her to look into the administration of Government policies. I   shall not prejudge the debate that we are about to have on the Adjournment of the House, but the ombudsman could be very busy.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr.   Williams) talked about the cross-border issue in the national health service. We were told today that the cost of prescriptions in Wales is being reduced to £4 and will eventually be reduced to zero. There is fear of NHS tourism and that people from England will waltz into Wales with their prescriptions. That could provide a substantial saving for some people living on the border if they are having treatment, for example, for cancer and so on. The First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, has said that the Assembly will ensure that prescriptions will be written in such a way—in the Welsh language as well as   English—as to ensure that people cannot come from England with their prescriptions and pay only £4 and eventually nothing, but I would welcome clarification on that.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire posed an interesting question about people who live in Wales but have a general practitioner in an English village across the border. Will general practitioners near the border have a stash of bilingual prescription pads so that such people qualify for the lower prescription charge? That is an interesting question. When the charge moves to zero, having access to such prescriptions will become even fruitful.
	Irrespective of the merits of the provision, it blows open the fact that English taxpayers will pay money into central coffers and that money will then be redistributed. Their money will ensure that Welsh people will eventually be able to pay nothing for their prescriptions whereas those in England will have to pay the going rate. I assume that the ombudsman will not be able to consider that anomaly, but many people living in a village neighbouring the Welsh border will have to pay the full whack for prescriptions when those across the   border get them for nothing. None the less, the interesting point for the ombudsman is to work out whether someone living in Wales is treated badly by the system because they go to an English GP—who might be the nearest one—and are denied access to the lower charges. I imagine that that might be one of the first issues that the ombudsman considers, but I am not sure that the First Minister has thought it through properly.
	When I first considered the costs, I assumed—stupid me—that the proposal was designed to save money, but I am not sure that it will. We all want streamlining to take place, and it should result in efficiency gains and savings that, I hope, would be returned straight to front-line services. That is what we have asked for. However, £250,000 is now being made available for the relocation of the offices, and I heard what was said at the beginning of the debate about where the new offices should go.
	A bit of transparency at this juncture would have been nice. I want to ensure that not everything that happens in Wales happens in Cardiff. There is no reason why it should. If devolution is to mean anything, it should mean that everyone in Wales benefits from it and from the distribution of governmental bodies throughout the   whole of Wales. Perish the thought, but such bodies could actually be relocated to north Wales. Why not? I   would welcome that. They are bureaucratic in nature and could end up almost anywhere.

Bill Wiggin: One of the difficulties that my hon. Friend has touched on is the cost, and he will be aware that a money resolution for the Bill appears on the Order Paper. If I am right—the Minister will correct me if I am not—it provides for any relocation to be paid for out of this Parliament's budget, and that is another example of waking the beast of English nationalism that my hon. Friend rightly mentioned. It might create a real problem for Wales.

Nigel Evans: There appear to be additional costs in all this, and that is why I am baffled that efficiency savings are not being made. Some £20,000 is being made available for publicity to tell people all about the scheme, and some £41,000 has already been put aside to meet the estimated cost of an increase in the number of complaints. Surely, efficiency gains could have resulted in savings that mitigated the impact of some of the costs. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
	Will the power of the ombudsman to name and shame be sufficient? The Government say that they believe that   it will be, but my noble Friend Lord Roberts successfully moved an amendment in the other place to ensure that a case could go to the High Court if the   ombudsman's recommendations are ignored. The Government are not keen on that, but do they believe that the naming and shaming of someone in a report will be enough or do they think that the ombudsman's powers should be stronger?
	I will finish as I started, by saying that we are moving into general election mode. I shall be interested to hear the Government's response. We need to ensure that the Bill continues to receive the good will of the House. As a result of its sensible nature, we must ensure that it is not held up because of little local difficulties—some tidying procedures—otherwise known as a general election.

Don Touhig: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate.
	I am grateful for the support of colleagues and for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for   Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asked about the location of the office for the ombudsman. The separate offices were co-located and relocated to new premises in Pencoed last month in preparation for establishing a unified service. I am sure that he will welcome that information.
	Let me clarify something for the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). He asked whether the ombudsman could issue guidance on planning delays across the 22 unitary authorities. As I made clear, the local planning authorities are within the ombudsman's jurisdiction. If he considers it necessary, he could issue guidance to local authorities, generally under clause 31. That could cover best practice in avoiding unacceptable delays in exercising planning functions. The ombudsman is required to consult listed authorities or such persons who represent them as he considers appropriate before issuing such guidance.
	The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) welcomed the Bill and touched on a number of things. In particular, he mentioned clause 5 and the limit of one year. He asked when the notice period begins and what power the ombudsman has to extend it. The period of one year in clause 5(1)(b) begins when the complainant first has knowledge of the matter, or when the complainant ought to have been aware of the matter giving rise to the complaint. By virtue of clause 2(4), the ombudsman may disregard that time limit if he considers it reasonable to do so in a given case. That might be because a listed authority has dragged its feet in dealing with a complaint.
	The hon. Gentleman and others mentioned costs. I   assure him that they are intended to be minimal, but there are no quantifiable savings. The purpose of the reform is not to make efficiency savings per se, but to recognise that it makes sense to create one unified ombudsman service. The co-location and relocation of the ombudsman office is a one-off cost of £250,000, but it was not intended as a cost-saving exercise.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the Government refused amendments to keep Members informed of ombudsman reports. He has wide powers to send copies   of his reports to such persons as he considers appropriate and/or to publish his reports. I am sure that the ombudsman designate, Adam Peat, who gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, will have taken note of the comments made.

Nigel Evans: Is it a possibility that all the reports could be made available on the internet so that people can access them for themselves?

Don Touhig: I am sure that that will be a possibility. I   cannot answer for definite, but if there is any doubt, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
	The hon. Member for Leominster and others raised concerns about the length of the appointment mentioned in the Committee's report and the call for a   five-year appointment renewable after five years. I   certainly hear what was said, but the imperative for the Government is that we maintain the independence of   the office, free from any actual or perceived pressure from the Executive. At the same time, we want to attract candidates of a suitable calibre to apply for posts. A seven-year fixed-term appointment achieves that. A   five-year renewable appointment does not. That is the basis for our decision thus far.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned cross-border matters and said that we need to ensure there is no gap in jurisdiction regarding regional flood defence committees. There is no gap. The Bill ensures that all regional flood defence committees are within the jurisdiction of the new ombudsman or the local commissioner in England. It ensures that the new ombudsman will investigate matters relating to the discharge of committee functions in relation to Wales, and that the local commissioner in England will investigate matters relating to the discharge of committee functions in England, so there really is no gap.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to the general approach of the Opposition in the other place and the amendments that they tabled. He expressed concern that the Government might seek to reverse any of those amendments. We noted the comments made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley about the time frame that we may face. I can assure the hon. Gentlemen and the House that the Government have no intention of seeking further amendments to the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr.   Jones) referred to the report of his Committee, which was most welcome. The hon. Members for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and for Ribble Valley raised a number of matters relating to the report. I have explained why the Government take the view that seven years is the proper length for the appointment. The Welsh Affairs Committee reported on 21 February, and   I hope to respond to the report shortly. I am grateful to the Committee for its detailed work in considering the Bill. At present, however, the Government are not minded to make any further changes to the Bill in response to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee supported calls for   the Secretary of State to be required to consult the   National Assembly on the appointment of the ombudsman, in addition to consulting it on his removal from office. As the Committee noted, the Government amended the Bill to that effect on Report in the Lords. As I say, I will be responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South and his colleagues shortly.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr.   Williams) welcomed the Bill and spoke of the confusion that we have at present with a number of separate ombudsman offices. He also raised cross-border matters; he thinks that these will be greatly improved by bringing those offices together under one ombudsman.
	I regret the fact that I was unable to take the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). He said that this is an excellent Bill, and he will be pressing for something similar in England. I can tell him that the Government are in discussions with the ombudsman in England to see what measures can be taken to allow the ombudsmen to work jointly. I am sure that through his work with the Public Administration Committee my hon. Friend will continue to press for something similar for England, and I am sure that that will be noted. I do not wish, or feel able, to go as far as saying what measures my fellow Ministers will introduce for England, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will ensure that the matter is on their agenda.
	The hon. Member for Caernarfon welcomed the Bill but expressed concern that Welsh language matters may fall between the two stools of the ombudsman and the Welsh Language Board. I do not think that there is a risk of that. I am also of the view that failure by a listed authority to comply with its own Welsh language scheme could well amount to maladministration or service failure. Hon. Members will be pleased to note that by virtue of clause 8(3), when a listed authority discharges any of its functions, even in relation to England or elsewhere, if that function relates to the Welsh language or Welsh culture, it will be within the   ombudsman's remit.
	The hon. Member for Ribble Valley raised a number of issues about the appointment. He welcomed the independence of the ombudsman. I can tell him that the   Bill now provides for a single term of office of seven years, so there is no possibility of someone serving 14 years—two terms. I cannot add much more to the points that I have already made about that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked what is meant by consulting the Assembly on the removal of the ombudsman. The duty to consult means a proper and effective consultation. It would mean that the Assembly's views needed to be taken into account before the Secretary of State made the recommendations to Her Majesty. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the location of the offices, which I have covered. They will be at Pencoed, which means that some posts previously located in Cardiff will now be moved to Pencoed. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Members of this House not being eligible to become ombudsman, and referred to Members of the other House. I will have to reflect on that; I will write to the hon. Gentleman in due course.
	To close the debate, let me repeat some key messages. The Bill is about ensuring that the Welsh public sector ombudsman services reflect and can evolve in step with the changing face of public sector service delivery in Wales. It has been warmly welcomed by everyone who has been consulted and who has considered it, and I   believe that it is immensely worth while. It will give   Wales a first-class ombudsman service in the 21st   century. I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMAN (WALES) BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6)(Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 14th April 2005.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	Programming Committee
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Programming of proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMAN (WALES) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)(Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under another enactment.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

Welsh Affairs

[Relevant documents: First Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2004–05, Work of the Committee in 2004, HC 256, Second Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2004–05, Manufacturing and Trade in Wales, HC 329, and Fourth Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2004–05, Police Service, Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour in Wales, HC 46.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Heppell.]

Peter Hain: I   pay tribute first to the former Prime Minister Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, who died only a few days ago. The first Welsh Prime Minister since Lloyd George, he was a much respected adopted son of Wales, and we are proud of him and his legacy.
	May I also express Wales's sorrow at the death of His Holiness the Pope? Tens of thousands of Catholics in Wales are in mourning, and we stand in sympathy and   support with them. We remember the Pope's visit to Wales in 1982, the huge impact that he made and the heartfelt warmth with which he was received.
	I also place on the record my appreciation of those Welsh colleagues who are standing down at the next election, having, between them, served for 117 years as Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence), my right hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) and for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and   for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) have a wealth and breadth of experience that will be much missed in the House.
	When the annual Welsh day debate was held just a few weeks before the 1997 general election, there were nearly 110,000 unemployed in Wales. Now, there are fewer than 60,000. In 1997 Wales was lagging well behind other parts of Britain, written off as backward and failing; now we are forging ahead, dynamic and succeeding. In 1997 business confidence was low; now business activity in Wales has increased for 23 months in   a row. In 1997 communities in Wales had been devastated by years of economic mismanagement and neglect. For example, the heart had been ripped out of the Pembrokeshire economy. Now communities right across Wales are being regenerated, and Pembrokeshire has the fourth highest business start-up rate in the whole of Britain.
	When we met in the last days of the Conservative Government, thousands of care workers, cleaners and security staff in Wales were earning just £1.90 an hour, hundreds of them in my constituency. By October this   year it will be illegal for them to earn less than £5.05   an hour, with a further increase to £5.35 next year, benefiting 80,000 low-paid workers in Wales. Back in the 1990s the Leader of the Opposition told us that the minimum wage would cost 2 million jobs. Since then 2 million jobs have been created, 125,000 of them in Wales—

Bill Wiggin: In the public sector.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman mutters about the public sector. No. As I will remind him later, around 40,000 jobs have been created in the public sector, and we are proud of that. There are more nurses, more doctors, more police officers and more teachers. The remainder of the 125,000 are in the private sector. In other words, for every public sector job created, two private sector jobs have been created in Wales under this Government.
	In that Welsh day debate in 1997, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), then Secretary of State for Wales, told the House:
	"There is no question but that Labour's policies would reduce employment, and they would certainly reduce employment opportunities for the future in Wales. The minimum wage would damage those opportunities . . . as would the adoption of the social chapter.—[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 291, c.   458.]
	The Conservatives were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
	The facts speak for themselves. When we met eight years ago the Welsh economy was on its back. Today it is striding forward, with 7,000 business start-ups funded by the Assembly last year—up 20 per cent. from the previous year—and a higher survival rate than in Britain as a whole. Earnings are rising faster than the UK average in Wales. Economic growth has increased by 6 per cent. since 2002. After almost eight years in office we can be proud of Wales, and not just on the rugby field.

Bill Wiggin: I think that the Secretary of State is right   about rugby, but I do not think that he is right about the economic indicators. Perhaps he would care to comment. Does he think that the proportion of those   unemployed, when combined with sickness and disability, is higher or lower than anywhere else in the UK?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have historic levels of ill health and industrial injury in Wales for all the reasons that everybody understands. He knows also that levels of economic inactivity have been falling, in some respects at a higher rate than in any other part of the UK, and that is encouraging. Further, he knows that in respect of people with disabilities, the   pilots carried out at Rhondda Cynon Taff and the Ogmore valleys have shown that more than 1,000 people have come off incapacity benefit and into work. Given the opportunity to work and the dignity and prosperity that that brings, they have taken it. Surely he should be welcoming this.
	I realise that the hon. Gentleman has great difficulty in finding any reasons to criticise this Labour Government's record in Wales, particularly by comparison with the record of our Conservative predecessors. However, he should not alight on aspects of the economy that stand up to his criticism.

Lembit �pik: Is it not a bit of a cheek for the Tories to start raising the issue of incapacity benefit in the valleys communities when it was the Conservatives who closed the pits   and then persuaded people to move off the unemployment figures and on to incapacity benefit? They wanted to persuade people to make that move to massage the figures. That is that sort of thing that we should be hearing the Conservatives talk about. People are worried about communities in south Wales being trashed by them again.

Peter Hain: Indeed. The truth is that the facts speak for themselves. The facts are that under the previous Government people were pushed off the dole and on to   incapacity benefit in record numbers to try to camouflage the huge amount of unemployment in Wales and throughout Britain. Also, when they lost their jobs in the pits, in Rhondda Cynon Taff and elsewhere, including Neath, there were no other jobs awaiting them. Now, if people lose their jobs, there are plenty of vacancies and they have the opportunity to reskill, retrain and move into work, as they have done by the thousand as the Welsh economy has been changing these past few years.
	I am proud that not only is Cardiff booming, but throughout Wales, towns and cities such as Swansea, Newport, Wrexham and Holyhead are booming too. In north-east Wales we have Airbus, our industrial jewel. Many other world-class industries are also growing.

Lembit �pik: On Hawarden, does the Secretary of State agree that Wales has the opportunity to specialise in aerospace, and that by being focused and strategic on a collective basis we could share the benefits of Airbus's unquestionable success throughout the wider economic base of Wales?

Peter Hain: I thought for a moment that the hon.   Gentleman was going to say that there is the   opportunity to specialise in air flight. I know that he   is a particular specialist in that area. I agree with his   point. In north Wales, and north-east Wales particularly, there is a real centre of world excellence in the aerospace industry. That is on the basis of launch aid provided by the Government through the Department of Trade and Industry, a budget that would be axed by the Conservatives if they came to power.

Mark Tami: I wish to help the House. Obviously the Liberal Democrats need to do a little more research. Airbus is in Broughton.

Lembit �pik: Hawarden.

Peter Hain: I was being kind by not correcting the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend is a much tougher and harder Member than I am.

Chris Ruane: Not too hard.

Nigel Evans: I am a great believer in manufacturing excellence and its spread. Typhoon, for instance, is manufactured in my constituency, but there will be a knock-on effect for   smaller manufacturers throughout the United Kingdom, including Wales. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the Liberal Democrat policy of scrapping tranche 3 of the Typhoon programme would jeopardise the manufacture of jet aircraft in this country for a very long time indeed?

Peter Hain: I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I sometimes do so at business questions to give him a helping hand. However, he is right that it is disastrous to withdraw support from businesses, whether large businesses in the aerospace industry or small businesses. His party is committed to do so in England with its policy of abolishing the Small Business Service, and the Liberal Democrats will do so across the United Kingdom with their proposals to abolish the Department of Trade and Industry.

Bill Wiggin: Am I correct in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman is now committed to tranche 3 of Typhoon?

Peter Hain: I realise that the hon. Gentleman has to try as hard as he can, and he wins plaudits from me for doing so, but he ought to do better.
	Only last month, there was another huge boost for Newport, with the transfer of an extra 500 quality permanent Prison Service jobs from England. That comes on top of 600 new Office for National Statistics jobs, which will be transferred to Newport from England.

Elfyn Llwyd: rose

Peter Hain: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is going   to welcome the Labour Government policy of   transferring jobs from the congested south-east of England to Walessomething that he has been demanding for many years, and which we are now delivering.

Elfyn Llwyd: Absolutely. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and applaud that move. I partly support the broad thrust of his remarks, but while Wales appears to be succeeding fairly well along the M4 and the A55, a huge area of the country is not doing so. I represent part of that land mass, and we have not seen any delivery of good new jobs, which is partly why the gross domestic product in Wales is going down instead of up.

Peter Hain: Actually, that is not true. Let us look at the   hon. Gentleman's own constituency, where unemployment has gone down by 55.8 per cent. under the Labour Government. Youth unemployment has   gone down by 97 per cent., and long-term unemployment for the over-25s has gone down by 79.6 per cent.

Elfyn Llwyd: rose

Peter Hain: Does the hon. Gentleman want more?

Elfyn Llwyd: I am certainly willing to hear plenty more about such things. However, I was telling the right hon. Gentleman about the lack of good-quality jobs. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) is always bleating on about low pay in Denbighshire, which is a problem. Low-paid jobs have been created, not good jobs. That may not be the case along the M4 and the A55, but a large part of Wales is not being well served.

Peter Hain: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, as most of the investment has been of enormous benefit to south Wales, particularly the south-east, and to north-east Wales. However, we have to start somewhere. Investment in south-east Wales has spread along the M4 through Swansea. I cited the figures for business start-ups in Pembrokeshire, where there has been an extraordinary turnaround, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) will confirm. More than twelve years ago, when I first campaigned for him at elections, the heart had been ripped out of the Pembrokeshire economy. What is true of that area is   true of north-west Wales, as I shall demonstrate later.   Only last week, I was in Anglesey and Clwyd, West. [Interruption.] Indeed, when the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) was in Anglesey, he would have noticed that in Holyhead and   throughout Anglesey there is a new buoyancy and business optimism, not just because there is a Labour MP but because the economy is much stronger.

Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. In fact, Bangor university research has shown that Anglesey has huge hidden unemployment. On the doorstep, one hears that people cannot get jobs and that there are a large number of economically inactive people on Anglesey. Shortly after the hon. Member for Ynys Mn (Albert Owen), who is not in the Chamber, said that the police were performing well on Anglesey there were many murders on the island. The situation is out of control.

Peter Hain: It is interesting to talk to business people in Anglesey, as I did on Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning last week. They are not Labour party members, though they will probably support my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mn, because they feel a greater buoyancy in the Anglesey economy and more business optimism. That is not to say that there are no problems remaining. Goodness me, after 18 years of Conservative decimation of the island's economy, it is not possible to turn everything round in eight years. That is why we need at least four more years to continue the job in Anglesey, with a Labour Member of Parliament to lead that renewal of the island.
	The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy raised the issue of gross domestic product or gross value added. The figures show that there has been a 6 per cent. rise in Welsh GDP and Welsh GVA compared with 2002, the second fastest growth rate in the United Kingdom in 2003, a higher growth rate than England and Scotland, and GVA per capita in Wales has been increasing relative to the European average for the past three years. GVA per head in West Wales and the Valleys, including the hon. Gentleman's part of west Wales, has increased by 17 per cent. since we have been in power.
	All those figures are provided by official statisticians and speak for themselves. I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome them. We can argue about how best to support business creation, encourage more people to come off incapacity benefit and so on, but I do not accept his persistent whingeing about the state of Wales and his failure to recognise that Wales is now on the up and moving forward, and that it will continue to move forward as long as the policies that we introduced continue to be implemented.
	Today I can announce, in that spirit, that Cardiff is to be the United Kingdom candidate for the headquarters of the European Union's global navigation satellite supervisory authority, the Galileo project. The potential to create such a prestigious project in Cardiff, with up to 30 high-quality jobs, in the year when we are celebrating 100 years of its city status and 50 years since it became our capital city, is immense. Positioning and related technologies are a vital component of the UK's knowledge economy and involve exactly the kind of jobs that we are trying to encourage in the new world-class Welsh economy.

Hywel Williams: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have quoted percentages and numbers600 jobs here, 500 jobs there. Unemployment is a personal tragedy for the person who becomes unemployed. What would the Secretary of State say, therefore, to my constituents who are to lose their jobs   in Caernarfon and Porthmadog because of his Government's policy of concentrating the processing of benefit claims in Wrexham and closing down local offices, which, incidentally, will have a deleterious effect on the quality of service to the public?

Peter Hain: One of the things I would say is that 250 jobs are coming to Bangor, very near the hon. Gentleman's constituency. That part of Wales needs those jobs

Bill Wiggin: Call centre jobs?

Peter Hain: Yes, high-quality call centre jobs, which are important and will remain in Wales. I remind the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) of the unemployment statistics for his constituency. There has been a 58.8 per cent. reduction since we came to power; youth unemployment is down a staggering 88 per cent.; and long-term unemployment is also down by 88 per cent. He ought to welcome those figures, because they show that his constituents are doing better, even if he does not recognise it.

Paul Flynn: My right hon. Friend's announcement of the nomination of the place that he describes as Cardiff, which we in Newport call Newport Far West, as the headquarters of the Galileo project, will be welcome, because that has been our travel-to-work area. The project brings enormous possibilitiesup to 10,000 or 12,000 jobs. It has huge potential and is even more important in that it represents the development of a new type of industry in   Wales in the intelligence high-tech sector, such as Cogent in Newport and many other firms, and will be a vital part of a transformation of the Welsh economy. Is it not marvellous news that the Government have such faith in the Welsh economy as to nominate Cardiff?

Peter Hain: In Neath we regard Cardiff as Far East Neath. Seriously, though, my hon. Friend is right. Those jobs are extremely important for what they symbolise. There may not be many at this stage, but it is   significant that out of the entire United Kingdom, Cardiff was chosen as the place to situate the headquarters of such a crucial European project. Of course we still have to beat the opposition across the rest of the European continent, but at least we are trying to do so from a strong base and signs of increasing Welsh success.
	The House need not take my word for all this Welsh success. It is clear that the Conservatives and the nationalists are not doing so. Just look at recent national newspaper headlines: in The Observer, Welsh resurgence; in The Wall Street Journal, High work ethics plus a pro-investment culture bring wealth to Wales; in The Daily Telegraph

Nigel Evans: Oh!

Peter Hain: I knew the hon. Gentleman would pick up that point. It is his paper. The Daily Telegraph headline reads, Everyone turns out to be a Welshman; and The   Sun says, Why Wales is so hip it hurts. Those are examples of national newspapers recognising the big dynamism that now exists in Wales, which is proving to be so successful under the policies that we have implemented.
	I am proud of what our Government have achievedproud that we have thousands more nurses, doctors, teachers and police officers than ever before in Wales. I   am proud that we have 40,000 more staff in public services in Wales. In a fiercely competitive world, with eastern Europe, not to mention China and India, taking more and more trade and jobs each month from Europe and America, I am proud that the Government have built a stronger economy in Wales than anybody can remember.
	Today Labour is not just the party of social justice but the party of economic prosperity and business success. In Wales, and right across Britain, Labour means full employment, low mortgages, economic stability and continuous growth, which allows business to plan and   invest for the long term. In the past two years the Conservatives have had 40 Opposition day debates in the House, yet not a single one has been on the subject of the economy. They do not want to discuss it, because they know that on the economy Labour is a winner, and Wales and Britain as a whole are winners too, because Wales is working, Britain is working, and people do not want the Conservatives to wreck it again.
	The Conservatives mean riskthe risk of economic failure, mass unemployment, public spending cuts, high   interest rates and high mortgages. They are pledged to make 35 billion of cuts in public spendingthat is, 50 million of cuts for every constituency in Wales, or up to 2 billion less public spending in Wales, at a time when we need sustained investment in our public services and social and economic infrastructure. [Interruption.]
	I hear heckling from the Conservative Front Bench and comments that that is not true. The shadow Chancellor published a graph showing that Labour's spending in the coming few years would rise to 668 billion, and the Conservatives' planned spending was 35 billion less than that. That is a 35 billion cut   in Labour's spending plansthe plans that we have for   building new hospitals, opening new schools and taking forward the new deal. All those plans for extra expenditure would no longer be committed because there is a gap of 35 billion, as the shadow Chancellor himself announced, with the accompanying graph showing that Labour's planned spending of more than 600 billion over the next few years would be reduced by 35 billion, amounting to 2 billion less public spending in Wales.

Nigel Evans: Will the Secretary of State say something about the NHS? Why does he believe that with all the extra money that has gone into the national health service in Wales per head of the population compared with England, there is a worse health service in Wales, compared with England?

Peter Hain: I shall come to that point, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised it I simply say this at this stage. As he knows, there has been a big legacy of ill health in Wales. That does not mean to say that everything that has or has not gone on in the NHS in Wales can be excused as free of criticismof course not. But we have now seen, with the announcement by the First Minister only a few weeks ago, that Wales's waiting times for key operations, such as hip operations and heart bypasses, to relieve people from pain, are coming down to a six-month total wait from the moment one sees one's GP to the moment one enters the operating theatre. That is about 26 weeks, which is comparable with the target that we are setting in England and that we intend to meet.

Adam Price: At the last election, the Welsh Labour manifesto promised the people of Wales that waiting times would be cut year on year. That promise was not kept, so why should the people of Wales believe Labour now?

Peter Hain: That is actually not true. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the latest figures, published only recently, he will see that waiting times are now coming down and there has been significant progress in reducing lists. In the last month, out-patient waits of over 18 months have been cut by over 2,000, and waits of over 12 months reduced by 3,500. We are making progress. I   agree that it has not been fast enough, but we will bring waiting lists down to a level of which I should have thought everyone in Wales would be prouda maximum of 26 weeks from the moment that a patient in pain sees their local GP to the moment that they walk through the door for an operation. That fantastic achievement will be secured only as a result of the huge investment that is being poured into the NHS in Wales under Labour.

Roger Williams: Will the Secretary of State explain to my constituents why they have to wait 18 months to go into an English district general hospital, whereas English patients have to wait only 12 months, and why they are artificially put back in the list to allow the hospital to reach the English waiting list target?

Peter Hain: If the hon. Gentleman had made that point to me a month ago, it might have had real force, but we now see a costed, clearly set-out programme to bring waiting times for his constituents and those of every other Welsh Member right down to the level that will be achieved by 2009 in England. I should have thought that he would welcome thata maximum of 26 weeks for an   operation to relieve pain. That was completely out of the question under the Conservative Government's policies, and would be completely out of the question without our huge investment in the Welsh health service.

Roger Williams: This is an important point to me and   my constituents. Since Christmas this yearthe Minister will understand this, because I contacted him   on itHereford hospital stopped treating Powys   patients altogether for orthopaedic conditions. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says about the future and 2009, those patients are in pain waiting for their operations and being denied them.

Peter Hain: I understand that it is not acceptable that people have to wait a long time for an operation, and the hon. Gentleman is entitled and right to press his constituents' case, which will help to achieve much speedier treatment times. But he is a fair-minded person and if he looks at the evidence, the programme and the spending that supports it, he will see waiting times coming right down to a maximum of 26 weeks. He should welcome that, and that is something that his constituents will welcome as well, because then there will be no substantial differential between England and Wales in the relief of pain.
	If the Conservatives were elected and their plans for 35 billion-worth of cuts over the coming years were implemented as they intend, there would be cuts to the Assembly's budget, meaning less money for schools, hospitals, transport and housingcuts that would mean that council tax rates would rocket up year on year.

Bill Wiggin: The Secretary of State knows that the Conservative party has no plans to cut the Welsh block grant.

Peter Hain: The Welsh block grant is set against the English budget, and there are consequentials, according to the Barnett formula, which flow from English spending levels. That is not just in health and education spending, but in local government and housing spending and a number of other areas. If the proposal of the shadow Chancellor, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Cabinetthe hon. Gentleman is outside the shadow Cabinet, but he has signed up to its proposalto cut future spending by 35 billion were implemented, Wales would not escape. The flow through would be automatic.

Bill Wiggin: Not true.

Peter Hain: It is as if the hon. Gentleman has been caught with his hands in the till and now seeks to deny that the money is in his pocket.

Chris Ruane: He thought the change would do him good.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend says that the hon. Gentleman thought a change of job would do him good, but he is being unfair to the hon. Gentleman.
	The Conservative party is pledged to cut 35 billion from our planned spending. We will be spending over 600 billion; the Conservatives will spend 35 billion less than that. How does one find that spare money other than by savage cuts, including in Wales50 million in each constituency?

Chris Bryant: That is just for starters.

Peter Hain: Indeed, and how do we know that it is just for starters? It is not just what the now deselected Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), a   member of the shadow Treasury team, says; it is also   what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr.   Redwood) said. He said that the approach that the Conservatives plan is just a down payment; it is just the   beginning of a process. The former Conservative candidate for Sedgefield described it as a process of creative destruction of the public services. He was dropped as the official candidate for Sedgefield, but he is still in the policy unit at Conservative central office, planning these programmes of creative destruction of public services.

Betty Williams: Does my right hon. Friend recall the days when the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was Secretary of State for Wales and responsible for returning Welsh money that should have been spent in Wales to the Treasury in London?

Peter Hain: Indeed, and it was a crime in Wales at a time when hospitals were being closed. Around 70 hospitals in Wales closed under that Government. Nurses were being sacked, doctors were losing the opportunity to practise, teachers were losing their jobs and schools were suffering. To repatriate 100 million of Welsh money back to London was outrageous.
	That is not all. On top of all this, the Conservatives want to take at least 60 million from the NHS in Wales to subsidise those who can afford to pay for private treatment in the first placemoney that is being used to pay for 2,400 nurses or 660 consultants. [Interruption.] The Opposition spokesman denies his own party's policy for the patients passport. Funding is being set aside from within the NHS to deliver that, and it is intended to pay for half the cost of private operations for those who can afford the cost of private operations in the first place. I can tell him that very few if any of my constituents could afford to go private, so he is taking 60 million out of the NHS in Wales, equivalent to 2,400 nurses or 660 consultants.

Wayne David: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Welsh Assembly Labour-led Government have allocated 100 million for a new state-of-the-art hospital in the Caerphilly borough. Is there any chance that such a hospital will go ahead if there happens to be a change of Government?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. Three other hospitals are planned to be built in Wales under the finance that we have set aside, and there is no certainty that they will be built under a Conservative Government because the Conservative party is pledged to cut spending year upon year upon year.
	As for the Liberal Democrats, they say that they will   scrap the new deal, which has helped 70,000 people in Wales into work, especially young people, including in the hon. Gentleman's constituency[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) not in support of this policy? Perhaps he could clarify.

Lembit �pik: I am listening to the Secretary of State's argument.

Peter Hain: I take that as a conversion on the Floor of the House. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is welcome to walk across the Floor at any time to join us on the Labour Benches. He has made a conversion and is now in support of the new deal, which has helped many people in his constituency into work.

Roger Williams: While my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) might not be right with the party policy, the Secretary of State will know that it is our policy not to support the bog standard new deal, but to give extra resources to people who find it even more difficult to get into employment. At the moment, the new deal does not distinguish between people who find it easier to get into employment and those who are having much more difficulty.

Peter Hain: I know that the Liberal Democrats are a very small party in Walesindeed, there are only two of thembut now they are split down the middle on the new deal. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, who in   other respects is a fine, upstanding Member of Parliament, is denouncing his own party's policy in Wales. That is nothing short of scandalous, and the electorate will wish to take account of it.

Roger Williams: There will have to be deselections.

Peter Hain: Now we have a promise of deselection as well. Where the Conservatives set the trend, perhaps the Liberal Democrats will follow, as they are doing in so many of their other policies, where they are moving towards marketisation in the national health service and the scrapping of the new deal. They are following the Conservatives, as they always do, as gentle little helpers in elections.
	The Liberal Democrats also say that they will axe the child trust fund, which will give 30,000 youngsters born in Wales each year a nest egg for the future. That is a very important nest egg, as many babies born in Wales will not enjoy the opportunity of having an asset when they reach adulthood, as those who come from higher-income families elsewhere in Britain can. They also opposed this year's increase in the minimum wage, calling it dangerous.

Chris Bryant: They never agreed with it in the first place.

Peter Hain: Indeed. The Liberal Democrats wanted a regional minimum wage, which would have meant that Wales had a lower minimum wage than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is interesting that they called the   increase dangerous, as the CBI supported it and the Federation of Small Businesses did not get out of its pram on it. Only the Liberal Democrats said that it was dangerous for the economy. They do not understand the problems faced by our communities in Wales. Why else would they vote against our plans to tackle teen gangs and antisocial behaviour, as they did in the House? Why else would they be planning a new local income tax that would put new burdens on hard-working families and nurses, teachers and police officers? In Swansea, for example, according to the Liberal Democrats' own calculations, their local income tax would mean a massive increase of 56 per cent. or almost 500 in the annual tax bill for two people earning the average Welsh wage. When they say in leaflets that they plan to abolish the council tax, we should say the truth in alternative leaflets, which is that that policy would hit many thousands of hard-working families on average wages in Wales.

Lembit �pik: I am listening with my usual grace to the   Secretary of State outline his position; I agree with some points and disagree with others. He is being disingenuous in the extreme in misrepresenting local income tax in such a way. Does he not acknowledge that the proposal is not a way to increase the tax take, but a means of bringing in the tax take more fairly? How can he tell a pensioner who lives in a large house and has a small income that they should be paying more council tax than a rich married couple who live in a small house and have a large income?

Peter Hain: We are going to take 200 tax-free off the council tax. That is a very important reduction, which is being welcomed by pensioners up and down Wales. It would be very helpful if we had a debate on local government finance. An investigation is under way on local government financethere will be a report once the work is completedto see whether we can make improvements, as there are some unfairnesses in the council tax system. The Lib Dems should come clean on the impact of a local income tax on people earning the average Welsh wagepolice officers, teachers, nurses and many other workers.
	There are all sorts of problems. Let us consider a very poor county borough council, such as Blaenau Gwent. The local income tax take from Blaenau Gwent would be very small by comparison with that from Monmouth, parts of Cardiff and even Neath Port Talbot. That would leave the county borough council in a very disadvantaged position. There are all sorts of issues on which the Liberal Democrats need to come up front regarding their proposals for a local income tax, as it looks like an easy hit for them when they say that they will abolish the council tax.

Roger Williams: The Secretary of State asks us to come clean on the effects of a local income tax. Perhaps he would come clean as well. He is always quoting the average Welsh family income. Can he tell us what that is, according to his calculations?

Peter Hain: These figures come from the Liberal Democrats' own calculations and estimations. I have not plucked them out of thin air. I have said that the average Welsh wage is the one that we should benchmark, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would see that as entirely sensible and logical.
	Since our last Welsh day debate, Plaid Cymru has lost its councils in Rhondda Cynon Taff and Caerphilly, which came storming back to Labour last June. Perhaps we should not be surprised that it has already told the media that it has given up across Wales. It is fighting to win only one extra seat out of 36.

Ian Lucas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Before he leaves the vexed subject of the Liberal Democrats, will he tell me whether he is aware that, in Wrexham, the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives recently voted against a proposal to extend a successful neighbourhood warden scheme across different parts of the borough? That happened in   the same week in which I received in my flat in Southwark a boastful leaflet from the local Member of   Parliament extolling the virtues and success of the   neighbourhood warden scheme in the Southwark, North and Bermondsey constituency and saying what an excellent scheme it was and how the Liberal Democrats fully supported it.

Peter Hain: Nothing surprises me about the Liberal Democrats when they get into power. [Interruption.] As I hear pointed out, there is a difference of light years between what they say in opposition, when they make all sorts of exaggerated claims in their Focus leaflets and make all sorts of policy promises, and what happens when they get into power, when they fail to deliver and are almost always ejected from office, like Plaid Cymru, when the electorate wake up to them.

Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the newly elected Liberal Democrat council in Cardiff has threatened the existence of the women's workshop, an award-winning and pioneering workshop that has brought enormous benefits for disadvantaged women? The grants have been cut, which in turn threatens the European funding.

Peter Hain: That is indeed shocking and disgraceful. Again, nothing surprises me about the Liberal Democrats when they get into power. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which she has supported women's rights throughout Cardiff, Wales and the world, and tenaciously represented the interests of the   women's workshop in Cardiff, which is scandalously being clobbered by the Liberal Democrats.

Lembit �pik: rose

Peter Hain: Is the hon. Gentleman going to volunteer another cut by a Liberal Democrat-run council?

Lembit �pik: The Secretary of State says that nothing surprises him. So will he concede that he was already aware that some of the cuts that are being forced in Cardiff at the moment are specifically due to a Labour Assembly Minister forcing a change in the rules in local government finance, which has meant that even an efficient Liberal Democrat-run council such as Cardiff has had to bring back its spending explicitly because of politically motivated edicts prompted by a fear of losing Cardiff, Central to my party?

Peter Hain: The Assembly Minister for Finance, Local Government and Public Services, Sue Essex, behaved responsibly in making sure that council tax payers in Cardiff did not get a huge tax rise under the Liberal Democrat council. [Interruption.] That is what the Liberal Democrat council was planning, until Sue Essex made it clear that it would be capped if it went ahead with those exorbitant increases.
	Why have cuts suddenly begun under Liberal Democrat rule? Liberal Democrats are not interested in the interests of local communities. Over the past few years, Cardiff has been successfully represented by a Labour council. It is now a booming city in every respect, and although the Liberal Democrats may gain some advantage from the plans, spending programmes and visionary leadership of that Labour-led council over the next few years, the electorate will increasingly find them out.

Lembit �pik: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: I shall make some progress on Plaid Cymru, before returning to the Liberal Democrats.
	Plaid Cymru has told the media that it has given up across Wales and that it is fighting to win only one extra seat out of the 36 that it does not holdit wants Anglesey back. Last week, I visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mn. It was clear that people do not want to go back to Plaid; they want to go forward with Labour and build on the success that the island is having after so many bleak years. Plaid Cymru cannot win the general election, but it can help the Tory party to win it, and a Labour vote for the nationalists or Liberal Democrats might let the Leader of the Opposition in the back door to No. 10.
	This is the choice facing Wales: back to the failed policies of the past, which brought division and depression to our communities, or forward with a Government who are equipped to address the challenges   of today's world. Those challenges include decent wages: those on low incomes need a Labour Government to continue above-inflation increases in the minimum wage, and in the working tax credit and the   child tax credit, both of which make work pay.
	Those challenges include home ownership: first-time buyers need a Labour Government to help them get on the housing ladder through the doubling of the stamp duty threshold and the biggest building programme of affordable housing in generations. And all home owners need Labour's successful stewardship of the economy to   keep mortgage rates lowmortgage rates are half   what they were under the previous Conservative Government.
	Those challenges include child care: parents need Labour's policies for affordable child care and for children's centres across Wales to provide high-quality pre-school and after-school care. Those challenges include skills: under Labour, every young person will have a guaranteed place in a college or sixth form, or an apprenticeship.
	Those challenges include pensions: under Labour, the pension credit and the winter fuel allowance will be   improved, not abolished. Council tax help from the Budget now means that 400 will drop through pensioners' letterboxes later this year, rising to 500 for the over-80s. Under Labour, free bus travel and a free TV licence are lifelines, not luxuries. The draft Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill has been published, and it provides for a champion for older people in Wales.
	The future also includes international challenges, such as climate change, world poverty, Africa, the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, human rights and winning the case for EuropeWales and Britain are stronger in Europe than isolated apart from it.
	Our Labour Government are impatient for more change, because there is so much more to do. I believe that the radical Labour vision that we will soon put before the people is one of which the socialists who founded our party more than 100 years ago would have been prouda radical Labour agenda to transform the quality of life for millions of our people, and billions more across the globe.
	There is now a clear choice in Wales on health: record investment pouring in under Labour or guaranteed transfers of NHS funds to subsidise private operations under the Conservatives; shorter waiting times with Labour or waiting much, much longer under the Tories, just like when they were last in power.
	There is another clear choice on devolution itself: Labour believes in power being exercised as close to the   people as possible, because we trust the people of Wales to know what is in their best interests and to find   Welsh solutions to Welsh problems. We will strengthen the Assembly, not scrap it, which is the proposal from the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr.   Wiggin). The choice is clear: a stronger Assembly under Labour, or, under the Conservatives, Wales run Redwood-style from London again. The partnership between our Labour Government at Westminster and our Labour Assembly Government in Cardiff is critical to delivering for the people of Wales. Wales must now decide if it wants that partnership to continue, because the Tories have pledged to destroy it.
	The Leader of the Opposition was the Minister who   introduced the poll tax. He was the Employment Secretary who presided over an increase in unemployment of more than 1 million, and he was the Home Secretary who cut police numbers by 1,000. He has not changed, because he came to south Wales last year and told us that coalfield communities revived considerably under Margaret Thatcher. Which planet is he living on? It is back to the past with the Tories, or forward with Labour.
	This is the choice: a Wales on its back and going backwardslosing out and looked down uponor a Wales with its chin up, walking tall and moving forward. We should be proud of our nation, proud of our talent, proud of ourselves, proud of Labour's achievements and proud of what we could do with four more years, in which we can build a progressive consensus in Britain that will never, ever allow Wales to be trampled on by destructive right-wing extremism imposed from London.

Bill Wiggin: I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State for Wales is better at his own policies than he is at oursthat rant was extraordinary.
	I am glad finally to speak in this debate on Welsh affairs, which is taking place more than a month after St.   David's dayit is almost St. George's day, and   St.   Patrick's day occurred recently. Perhaps the Secretary of State forgot his Welsh role or felt that other matters were more important. I also offer him my commiserations on his still being 12:1 to succeed as leader of the Labour party, but at least Rory Bremner does a fantastic impression of him.
	Conservative Members simply want the best for Wales and its people. The people of Wales face unparalleled struggles in their health care system. In any other developed country, it would be considered unacceptable to have one in 10 of the population on a waiting list.Violent crime, gun crime, and drug-related crime are increasing, yet crime detection rates are going down. Council taxes have rocketed and yet levels of affordable housing are forever decreasing.

Betty Williams: The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House, because detection rates for North Wales police are top of the league for the whole of England and Wales.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Lady withdraw that statement?

Betty Williams: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the figures that have recently been published for North Wales police? The western division of North Wales police, which covers part of my constituency, has the top detection rate in the whole of England and Wales, and the central division and the division that covers the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) are among the top 10 divisions in the whole of England and Wales.

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Lady will find that incidents of drug crime increased from 9,425 in 2001 to 10, 268 in 2003. Those are the latest published figures on drug crime. [Interruption.] If she will bear with me, I shall come to detection rates. Incidents of violent crime increased from 39,274 to 56,561, again between 2001 and 2003. On gun crime, recorded offences increased from 85 in 1997 to 169 in 2004.
	While crime has increased, detection rates have gone down. Total crime detection rates in Wales decreased from 41 per cent. in 2001 to 36 per cent. when the latest figures were published in 2003. If the hon. Lady has new   figures, that is tremendous, but unfortunately her Government have not yet published them.

Ian Lucas: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that last week the Association of Chief Police Officers criticised the advertisements on detection rates as misleading. He will also be aware of the view of the chief constable of North Wales that the Conservative party is misleading the public and misrepresenting the crime statistics in Wales, which is leading to unnecessary fear among the   general population. Will he use this opportunity to withdraw and to apologise to the people of Wales?

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the figures that the Government put out increased the general public's fear, but expects me to apologise for the   Government's figures. I think he is quite incorrect.

Peter Hain: I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to take those figures from Labour Membersalthough he is having to do sobut to admit that he was wrong. He is   repeating wrong statements. The chief constable of   North Wales police accused the Conservatives of wrongly exaggerating the threat of crime ahead of an election. I want to quote Richard Brunstrom, the chief constable. He said:
	This misleading advert quite improperly seeks to stir up fear of rising crime when it is well established that crime has been falling for years both locally and nationally . . . I am disappointed in the extreme that it has appeared in the press in a marginal constituency in the run-up to a general election.
	The Association of Chief Police Officers said:
	If we want to increase the fear of crime, the selective use of statistics can help in doing that.
	It is quite obvious that the hon. Gentleman is indulging in the selective use of statistics, and the chief constable of North Wales has indicted him and criticised him for doing that.

Bill Wiggin: I have been very indulgent in letting the Secretary of State make such a long speech about his feelings. When does he feel that people should be talking about crime? Surely it must be just before a general election, when voters count. Even more important, his Government are responsible for publishing those figures, and if he does not like what they say he should have spent the past eight years doing more about it.

Paul Flynn: The chief constable explained why the figures showed an apparent rise. It is because the entire basis for the calculations has changed. The chief constables warned us about three years ago that there would be an apparent rise. In fact, we are told by the chief constable of Gwent and many others that the crime rate is the lowest for 20 years.

Bill Wiggin: rose

Chris Bryant: While the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) is answering that question, would he reflect on the fact that many people have drawn attention to the large posters we can see all over Wales that refer to crime? One of them asks, How would you like it if your daughter was assaulted by somebody out on early release? Can the hon. Gentleman name a single case in Wales where that has happened? If not, he should take those posters down.

Bill Wiggin: That is an absurd suggestion. However, the point made by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) is relevant in one respect. I understand that   some of the statistics are now calculated differently. I can tell the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) that I used figures from post-2001, which is after the changes to the way in which the figures were calculated. The figures that I quoted on crime detection are correct. It is possibly misleading if the figures on the posters do not include that addendum, but the question is: have the people of Wales become safer? The sad fact is that they have not. They are not safer and crime is going up, especially violent crime, gun crime and drug-related crime. That is an important point and people who are about to vote at the election have every right to have their fears discussed publicly in places such as this[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) says that fear is being whipped up, but with perhaps only a day to go before the Prime Minister announces the general election I hardly think that whipped up is fair.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I fully agree that it is right to discuss crime at any time in the electoral cycle, but it is unacceptable for any of us irresponsibly to cause a situation where people in my constituency feel it is unsafe to go outside their homes. Will the hon. Gentleman make clear to me, so that I can report back to my constituents, whether he really feels that in Bridgend and Ogmore it is not safe to walk the streets because of the fear of gun and knife crime and violent crime; or does he actually believe what my chief constable saysthat not only have detection rates increased, but crime in my borough is going down year after year?

Bill Wiggin: Unfortunately, the evidence does not suggest that. In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I quoted the figures earlier: violent crime went up from 39,274 to 56,561 cases between 2001 and 2003. His constituents will have to decide for themselves how safe they feel, but gun crime in Wales has increased from 85 recorded cases in 1997 to 169 in 2004. The system for counting gun crime did not change between 2001 and 2003, nor did the system for counting violent crime, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. He would be well advised to tell his constituents that they would be considerably safer if there were another 2,199 police officers, which they would get under a Conservative Government.

Donald Anderson: What is clear is that chief constables in Wales have universally criticised that advertisement as misleading. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with them or not? Are they seeking to mislead?

Bill Wiggin: I do not think that the chief constables are seeking to mislead, and nor is the Conservative party. The Government may have failed to explain why they changed the statistics and whether those statistics are misleading, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. It was his Government who released the figures.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am genuinely trying to tempt the hon. Gentleman back from the abyss. In this debate and in some propaganda outside the House, we are in danger of scaring people unnecessarily. Does he agree that we have a responsibility as parliamentarians, and especially as Front-Bench spokesmen, to reflect reality? Where there is cause for concern, let us discuss it, but where there are improvements, let us reflect them in our debate.

Bill Wiggin: If the hon. Gentleman wants to reassure   his constituents he should tell them to vote Conservative. They will get extra police officers and they will be safer.

Roger Williams: The Archbishop of Canterbury asked political parties not to dwell on fear in the election. One of my local papers reported on statistics on crime comparing 1997 to 2004when there had been a change in definitionstating that incidents of violent crime in the Brecon area had gone up from 5,000 to more than 8,000. As fewer than 8,000 people live in the Brecon area, does the hon. Gentleman think that they have been fighting all the time, day and night?

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman's initial point was serious. Nobody wants to trade on fear, but we must remember that we have been hearing about record levels of spending and record numbers of police officers. Things have never been rosier in the garden, if we believe the nonsense that we have had to listen to this evening. It is entirely right that people should realise that under a Conservative Government they would not just be safer, they would have an extra 2,199 police officers.

Nigel Evans: It is not just that we are promising to put extra police officers on the streets of Wales, although that is absolutely right; we will also release the police who are there already from the paperworkthe red tape   and bureaucracythat constantly dogs them. They spend more time chained to their desks in the police station than out on the streets detecting the crimes that people are genuinely afraid of in Wales.

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I   am grateful for that intervention.
	The sad thing is that no matter how often we tell Labour Members about the serious problems faced by our constituents, they refuse to listen. They put their heads in the sand like ostriches and fail to recognise that   there is a genuine problem. Elderly people are frightened. There is an increase in crimedrugrelated crime, violent crime, gun crimeand nothing that the Government have been doing has made a difference. The extra expenditure that the Secretary of State talks about all the time has not delivered.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I have to make an unfavourable point. His thesis is absurd. Is he actually saying that people in rural Wales are staying in because they are worried that someone will run down the alleyway with a pistol? What he is saying is utter nonsense. If I catch your eye later this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope to address the question of the perception and reality of crime, and I hope, with respect, to make a better contribution than the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin).

Bill Wiggin: So much for my charitable act of the evening. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to make light of people's fears, and I hope that when he makes what he calls a better fist of it, he will not forget the importance of those elderly people.

Mark Tami: Is this not the perfect example of the Lynton Crosby attitude that the Tories have absolutely nothing to offer, apart from fear? That is what they are playing on, totally unfairly.

Bill Wiggin: Did the hon. Gentleman not listen to the Secretary of State's speech? Did he not hear the absolute gibberish about the Thatcher years and the trading on   fear to which we have had to listen? Does he not recognise the difference between the truth, according to the crime statistics released by the Government, and the fantasy about the history that we have had to listen to, none of which is corroborated?

Lembit �pik: Okay then, I shall ask a factual question: did crime not double under the Conservatives?

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman's question is completely irrelevant as we are talking about the crime statistics now. I have heard about the Liberal party splitting and I have seen the hard time that the Secretary of State for Wales gives the hon. Gentleman, but, quite honestly, after eight years of this Government we should, as has been said, move forward rather than backwards.

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose

Bill Wiggin: I give way to the hon. Gentleman for the third time.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so generously. To try to get some balance into the debate, I should say that overall crime in Bridgend county borough is down by 16.5 per cent. However, on a serious point, will he accept my invitation to visit my constituency at any time in the next few weeks? I will take him down any street on any evening. I will take him to Maesteg and show him what is going on there, and I will take him to Pencoed. I make that invitation seriously because I worry that his tone genuinely adds to a climate of fear, quite unnecessarily.

Bill Wiggin: All I can do is thank the hon. Gentleman for his invitation and say that I will visit his constituency, but whether I visit the places that he mentions or whether I go with him remains to be seen.
	I will now make some progress. Let us turn to the fact that council taxes have rocketed, yet affordable housing is forever decreasing. Economic activity rates and employment rates still lag behind those of England, and   the industrial jobs that were so prevalent in the past are draining away without being replaced. The gross domestic product of the objective 1 areas in Wales is below those of ex-Soviet bloc countries, such as Slovenia, and no matter what the Government try to claim, the situation is worsening.
	No doubt the Secretary of State for Wales will accuse me of talking Wales down, as he usually does, but that is far from what I am doing. We all know how much potential and passion Wales has. Some of us are so concerned about what is going wrong for the people of Wales that we want to bring it to their attention, rather than sweeping it away under a pile of figures and partial truths. Labour in Westminster and Cardiff have had eight long years to deliver their promises to Wales.
	Let us consider the economic success that the Secretary of State for Wales so enjoys lauding. Wales's economic activity level stands at 75.4 per cent., compared with the UK's 78.7 per cent., and the rate has continued to fall over the past year. No matter how much the Secretary of State tries to hail falling unemployment, employment still lags almost 3 per cent. behind the UK average. In fact, an Institute of Welsh Affairs report said:
	On the surface, unemployment appears to have reached tolerably low levels, but when combined with sickness and disability claimants, the proportions not working are higher than virtually anywhere else in the UK.
	The people of Wales still face lower pay. Powys is the lowest paid region in the whole of the UK. The 82.2 per cent. of UK average GDP that Wales had achieved under the last Conservative Government has now shrunk to below 79 per cent. The trend is clear: under Labour, Wales's economy is going backwards, and the   unfortunate consequence is that there are so many   missed opportunities in Wales. Wales continues to haemorrhage manufacturing jobs. Tens of thousands of private sector jobs are being lost and VAT deregistrations of businesses are still outweighing new business registrations.

Chris Bryant: There is a serious point, which the hon. Gentleman has raised twice this evening, about how to combine incapacity benefit and unemployment benefit. On every occasion when Select Committees have considered that issue, they have concluded in unanimous reportsincluding the Conservativesthat the incapacity benefit figures cannot simply be lumped into the unemployment benefit figures to produce some sort of measure for hidden unemployment. Those of us who represent constituencies where economic activity is high believe that we can do much more to try to help people with disabilities into work, but I worry that the proposals to reform the benefit system that the hon. Gentleman's party has come up with would dump people on to a new pile to one side and not help them into work. How does he plan to help people into work?

Bill Wiggin: Such genuine and heartfelt concerns should be taken seriously, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong, pure and simple, about those fears. I do not think that there is a plan to dump people from one list to another. That has been going on already, and it is not effective. That is one of the reasons why I find it so difficult to listen to the Secretary of State for Wales telling us how brilliantly the economy of Wales is doing, when the reality is pretty much as the hon. Gentleman describes it in his important intervention.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bill Wiggin: No. I have been pretty generous in giving way, and although we could go on until 11 o'clock tonight, I will make some progress in fairness to all the other hon. Members who wish to speak.
	One of the key causes is the Government's complete inability to do anything about the red tape that is strangling businesses. It is a simple and clear fact that a small business in Wales that employs more than 25 people will spend 73 hours a month filling in Government paperwork. A survey of small businesses in   Wales found that red tape had stopped 36 per cent. of them recruiting more people and that 18 per cent. had been forced to cut employee levels. If the Government really want to stop damaging Wales's economy, they must remove the excessive regulation, targets and rules that are strangling Welsh businesses. They must also act to reduce the massive taxation burden that faces the people of Wales.
	Unlike the Government, the Conservatives do not believe that increasing the amount that everyone pays a week in tax by 42 is the way to give people the freedom to succeed and develop greater prosperity. We have seen the Government's 66 stealthy increases in the taxes that we payand seen the damage that that does. In Wales, nowhere is the curse of escalating taxes more obvious than in the rocketing council taxes. Since 1997, council taxes in Wales have increased by an average 392, or 79 per cent. Areas such as Monmouthshire and Blaenau Gwent have faced increases of 12 and 13 times the rate of inflation. Thanks to the Government's rebanding policy, many people are facing the double whammy of going up a council tax bandor two, or even three. That is set to bump up the tax on an average band D home to more than 1,000 by next year.
	The Chancellor's most recent budget, of course, tried to lure voters with the long overdue move to exempt homes up to the value of 120,000 from stamp duty. Yet that simply hides another attack on Welsh business: commercial stamp duty tax relief in deprived areas was abolished. Welsh businesses will suffer as the Government rake in 340 million from them with that new tax. Of course, that raises the question of what all that hard-earned money will be spent on. We can hope that it will be ploughed back into the things that Wales needs the most. Unfortunately, given the Government's record on spending and wasting, I fear that that will not be the case.
	In Wales, we need only to look at the massive 67 million570 per cent. higher than the original estimatespent on the new Assembly building to see evidence of unnecessary waste. What a difference from Conservative spending proposals, which will guarantee a good deal for Wales from the savings that we make from cuts in waste across Britain. With Barnett funding on top of the block grant, Wales will get a great deal and   not face the continued waste and subsequent tax increases that it will suffer if Labour wins a third term. Of course, because our priorities are things such as the NHS and education, which account for a large proportion of Wales's funding, the actual growth will be even greater, yet never were improvements to such things more desperately needed for Wales.
	Wales already faces many inequalities in the health of its people. Only 30 per cent. of people in Wales meet guidelines for physical activity, and more than half the population is technically overweight, with 17 per cent. of them obese. More than a quarter of the population smoke and 41 per cent. admit to drinking more than recommended. The many people who wonder why the Welsh NHS has been allowed to descend into the disastrous situation in which it finds itself should look at   its administration. Despite a 40 per cent. increase in health spending, it is difficult to find anything, bar the hard work and devotion of the front-line staff in Wales, that is actually going right with Welsh health care.

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman made a passing reference to the Welsh Assembly. Will he confirm that he is in favour of scrapping the Welsh Assembly, although the leader of the Conservative group in the Welsh Assembly wants it to have more powers?

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman gives me a nice opportunity to make the exact policy clear. We have said, as we have always said, that we will not do anything without the say-so of the Welsh people. To that extent, we will hold a referendum. The choices in the referendum will be whether to give the Assembly further powers, whether to abolish it, or whether to leave it as it is.

Chris Bryant: A preferedum.

Bill Wiggin: It will be a sort of preferendum, as the hon. Gentleman says. However, my vote does not count in Wales, so it is no good pushing me on this one. Although all other hon. Members in the Chamber will have a voteexcept perhaps you, Madam Deputy SpeakerI will have to sit gnawing my fingernails in anticipation of the result. It would be disingenuous of me to lead hon. Members to think anything but that the people of Wales will have the final say over the future of the Assembly.

Lembit �pik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bill Wiggin: I will give way, but briefly.

Lembit �pik: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest. Will he confirm that the only way in which pensioners in Wales will get the council tax rebate about which his party is talking will be to abolish the Welsh Assembly, or have I misunderstood his position?

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about that. The money for the pensioner discount will be available through the Welsh block grant, if the   Assembly chooses to give it to pensioners. At the moment it does not choose to do that.

Elfyn Llwyd: I think that I understood the hon. Gentleman to be saying that he was not expressing an opinion on the future of the Welsh Assembly because he did not have a vote in Wales. Was that what he said?

Bill Wiggin: I apologise if I was not clear. I have expressed an opinion in the past, from over the border. I have been asked how I would vote if I had a vote. I   would vote for abolition, but that is not the policy of my party, which is one of holding a referendum. [Hon. Members: Resign!] I think that I have made the policy perfectly clear and said what I would do if I had a vote, even though I do not.

Elfyn Llwyd: rose

Bill Wiggin: I will give way again, because I am enjoying this.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman made the point that he would not be involved in that debate because he does not have a vote in Wales. He does not have a vote in Wales in the general election either, so how can he lead the Conservatives' general election campaign in Wales?

Bill Wiggin: Because I have expressed my opinion and I shall continue to do so, even though I do not vote in Wales. I do not have any difficulty with that.

Wayne David: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying

Chris Bryant: Do you? How do you understand it?

Wayne David: I am being charitable. Will the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) give a commitment that ifGod forbidhis party wins the general election and he becomes Secretary of State for Wales, he will visit Wales more often?

Bill Wiggin: More often than what, or who? I visit Wales quite regularlyas often as I possibly can. I think that I have visited the constituency of practically every hon. Member in the Chamber.

Huw Irranca-Davies: You did not come to mine.

Bill Wiggin: Oh yes I did. [Interruption.] Let me make a little more progress; I am sure that we will find time for some more interventions later.
	The mystery to many is how the Welsh NHS has been allowed to descend into the disastrous state in which it finds itselfuntil, of course, we look at administration. Despite a 40 per cent. increase in health spending, it is difficult to find anything, bar the hard work and devotion of the front-line NHS staff in Wales, of course, that is going right in Welsh health care. The Secretary of State said in the Labour Assembly manifesto of 2003:
	the dynamic partnership between a Labour-led assembly and a Labour Government at Westminster is delivering results.
	I am afraid that all they have delivered is waiting lists.
	More than 100 people have waited longer than four years for an out-patient appointment in Wales. The latest figures show that the overall number of patients waiting is about 300,000, which is an increase of 83 per cent. since Labour took control in Wales. Expensive initiatives mean that money is being thrown away for small improvements. I believe that Labour succeeded in spending 36 million to remove just 40,000 people from the waiting lists in two years.

Julie Morgan: rose
	Even the briefest assessment of the Welsh NHS illustrates massive failings. Wales now has an out-of-hours general practitioner service in constant and escalating turmoil. Patients are five times more likely to be given a pacemaker for their heart if they live in Poland than if they live in Wales. Despite the higher rate of heart disease in Wales, the use of less invasive treatment to tackle blockages in heart arteries is half of that in England.

Julie Morgan: rose

Bill Wiggin: MRSA rates are not improving and the number of cases has more than trebled since 1996. While 130 people unnecessarily block beds in Cardiff and 10 ambulances queue outside Royal Gwent hospital, a man suffering from a suspected heart attack spent nearly two days waiting for a hospital bed. As that gentleman said:
	the staff are absolutely brilliant but the system is totally wrong.

Julie Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for finally giving way. He says that nothing is going right in the Welsh health service. Is he aware of the success of the   University Hospital of Wales in my constituency of   Cardiff, North? The introduction of day surgery for parathyroid disease, when tumours are removed from the neck, was piloted at UHW. The hospital has thus reduced an 18-month waiting list to one of a couple of weeks. Such pioneering work is leading the UK, yet the hon. Gentleman has the cheek to say that nothing is going right in the Welsh health service. What does he think that the staff who are working on that initiative and many others in the health service feel about such comments?

Bill Wiggin: I have been pretty generous in taking interventions during the debate. I again cite the quote:
	the staff are absolutely brilliant but the system is totally wrong.
	The hon. Lady should pay closer attention to what I   actually say rather than misquoting me and trying to make out that I said something that I did not. Her comment was most unfair. While I am delighted to hear that progress is being made in one part of the NHS, we cannot get away from the horrendous increase in waiting lists in Wales. The Welsh people will not entirely forgive her when she stands on the doorstep and tries to explain the situation regarding waiting lists with the example that she gave. Of course, I might be wrong about thatwe have to wait and see.

Betty Williams: While the hon. Gentleman is throwing out such comments, is he aware that ysbyty Glan Clwyd, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), and ysbyty Gwynedd, which is in my constituency, are two of the top performing hospitals in the whole of the United Kingdom?

Bill Wiggin: I am delighted to hear that, but it does not change what was said in the quote:
	the staff are absolutely brilliant but the system is totally wrong.
	I think that the hon. Lady will find that MRSA figures for ysbyty Gwynedd are not as good as she would perhaps like, and it is a great shame that it has taken so long for the figures even to be released. I do not think that I shall take any more interventions because I have been pretty generous. However, the hon. Lady should check the MRSA figures for ysbyty Gwynedd because they are a real tragedy that let the whole hospital down.
	Never has the struggle facing first-class NHS staff been more obvious than in the horrendous vote of no confidence that the British Medical Association Cymru recently passed on the Welsh Assembly. No wonder there are unfilled consultant posts and more than 500 unfilled nursing vacancies in Wales. No wonder the number of temporary staff, who now cost 38 million a year, has increased by 192 per cent. since Labour took control. That is why it is time for action for the Welsh NHS, and action now.
	We know, as Conservatives, that by giving patients choice and giving control back to doctors and nurses, who best know how to run their hospitals and surgeries, the Welsh NHS can improve. We also know that having more bureaucrats in the Welsh Health and Social Services Department than practice nurses in GP surgeries, as this Government do, is not the right way to go about that, just as the way to improve the education that children get in Wales is not by implementing half-thought-out ideas, such as the free school breakfasts fiasco. Some people may remember Dr. Chris Howells of the National Association of Head Teachers Cymru describing that policy as a dog's dinner. It has become obvious over the past few months that what Labour have in mind is scarcely even thatthe policy was never intended to feed all children and is now costed at 30p per head. While taxpayers' money is wasted on such schemes, Welsh GCSE pass rates have not reached the Assembly targets for even three years ago, let alone last year. A teaching union has claimed that schools could afford five more teachers every year if they received as much funding as those in England. Wales also remains one of the worst areas in Britain for truancy. Expelled children are being shifted from school to school or, worse still, sometimes being returned to the same one.
	If the Government will not listen to our calls, perhaps they should listen to the teachers themselves. The secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers Cymru has said that there needs to be
	more than rumblings from politicianswe need action . . . Teachers' hands are tied by the sanctions available . . . a reversed decision to discipline a child undermines the role and professionalism of the teacher.
	Under the current system, children in Wales, as in the rest of the UK, are being denied chances that they are worthy of. Surely it is not difficult to understand that teachers need to have real control over their schools; otherwise, the cycle of disorder and lack of discipline will simply continue.
	We can see the same thing occurring in terms of Wales's rising crime levels. Drug crime offences rose from 9,425 in 2001 to 10,268 in 2003; violent crime offences increased from 39,274 to 56,561 between 2001 and 2003; gun crime increased from 85 recorded offences in 1997 to 169 in 2004and while crime goes up, detection rates go down. The total crime detection rate in Wales decreased from 41 per cent. in 2001 to 36 per cent. in 2003. More than six in 10 burglars escape unpunished.
	This Labour Government make a pretence of being tough on crime, yet they have introduced the option of an 80 fixed penalty notice for shoplifters, and for those who cause criminal damage up to the value of 500. They began an early release scheme that is almost criminal in itself, releasing criminals back on to the streets to reoffend, while the public live in fear. More than 3,600 crimes have been committed across the UK by criminals on early release.
	Reclassification of cannabis has done nothing to help the people of Wales, where the number of deaths directly caused by illegal drug misuse almost doubled between 1997 and 2002. A South Wales Echo report showed that almost 60 per cent. of 20 to 39-year-olds had taken illegal drugs. The assistant chief constable of the South Wales police has rightly said that cannabis, which is taken by 58 per cent. of this age group,
	must not be underestimated . . . many people are confused about whether it is illegal.
	When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was Home Secretary, crime fell by 18 per cent. We know that the best way to stop crime in Wales, as anywhere in the   UK, is to make sure that it does not paya point that this Government do not seem to realise. Their figures show that Cardiff prison is operating with more   prisoners than it has capacity for. If innocent, law-abiding people in Wales are to stop suffering while the real criminals get away with it, we need more prisons, more police, more drug rehabilitation places and honest sentencing. Under this Government, that is not happening.
	In Wales today, people are having to put up with standards of public services and economic strength far below that which they deserve. Yet what can they expect from a Government who have denied the Welsh regiments equal treatment in respect of their name, in a classic example of anti-Welsh double standards? What can they expect from a Government who have not even promised the people of Wales a referendum on their policy of devolved government, before any action is   taken? We have promised them their voice and their   choice. Under the Conservatives, the people of Wales will be free to decide the future of devolution in   Wales. We would leave the Welsh regiments untouched, as they deserve to remain, thereby safely preserving their proud history. By no means should they have to suffer the indignity of being deprived of the same concession in respect of their name as that given to the Scottish regiments.
	We believe in being rewarded for hard work and in hard-earned money being spent wisely, not in its being frittered away on things that we never see the benefits of. The people of Wales, as of Britain, should be able to walk safely on their streets, to have clean hospitals and shrinking waiting lists, and to know that their children will be safe and well educated and given the chance to   grow into independent, successful adults with responsibility, freedom and choice. No, I do not intend to talk Wales down. I simply intend to point out the failings that the people of Wales should not have to put up with, and the disadvantages still facing so much of Wales, under a Labour Government who have got so much wrong, who have failed so many times, and who are taking Wales for granted and in the wrong direction.

Martyn Jones: Three of the Welsh Affairs Committee's reports are tagged to this debate, and I would like to use them as the basis for my   contribution. The first report in this Session is a digest of the Committee's work in 2004, and it sets out   its activities, inquiries and reports. During 2004, the   Committee demonstrated the breadth of the subject matter that it covers. We scrutinised policies of the Home Office, of the Department for Education and   Skills, of the Department for Transport, of the   Department of Trade and Industry, and of the   Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Such coverage demonstrates that our role is greater than merely scrutinising the Wales Office, and that we cast our net widely in scrutinising Government policy that affects Wales.
	However, in addition to scrutinising Government policy affecting Wales, my Committee also scrutinises draft Wales-only legislation and Wales-only legislation that is being considered by Parliament. In previous years, we have undertaken pre-legislative scrutiny in parallel to, but separately from, scrutiny of the same   draft legislation by Committees of the National Assembly. That approach was inefficient and inappropriate, so my Committee recommended, successfully, that the House empower it formally to meet Committees of the National Assembly on matters of mutual interest.
	We have used those powers to scrutinise the draft Transport (Wales) Bill and the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill, which was debated on Second Reading earlier today. We have also used the power formally to meet National Assembly Committees to consider the Ofcom review's findings on public service broadcasting as they will affect Wales.
	Formal joint working is an important and welcome development. At an administrative level it avoids duplication, but its true worth is its ability to provide joined-up scrutiny of Government policy through partnership between the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly Government. In our report on the   work of the Committee in 2004, we pointed out that all sides believed that formal joint working was a success. The Under-Secretary described it as the way forward, while the Secretary of State for Wales considered it to be beneficial to all involved. The shadow Secretary of State for Wales also considered it to be a more time-efficient approach that avoided duplication.
	I welcome those comments because the power formally to meet Committees of the National Assembly will cease to have effect at the end of this Parliament. I   hope that, if the Government and the official Opposition are in favour of our formal joint working, those powers will be made permanent at the start of the next Parliament, regardless of who is in power. I offer the Under-Secretary and the shadow Minister the opportunity to confirm their views on this matter during their replies.
	I also want to draw attention to our two major reports published in this Session. The first, Manufacturing and Trade in Wales, considered the economic well-being of Wales and the second, Police Service, Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour in Wales, considered all aspects of antisocial behaviour control in Wales. The first report considered the current state of Welsh manufacturing, foreign direct investment to Wales, Welsh exports, the relationship between industry and academia, and UK Government support for Welsh manufacturing. It concluded:
	The transition from traditional manufacturing in Wales was a difficult journey and not without pain.
	However, Wales has managed to modernise and to diversify its manufacturing base, and in some areas it now leads the field.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that nevertheless, areas such as Montgomeryshire have   had a particular problem with small-scale manufacturing operations? Indeed, more than 600 manufacturing and other jobs have been lost there on account of downsizing and shifting work abroad. Does he agree that any strategy for Welsh manufacturing needs to take account not just of the large multinational companies, but of the private companies on which the economic prosperity of local communities often depends?

Martyn Jones: One of the particular problems in attracting foreign direct investment is that we do not get   the necessary research and development jobs. Our Committee recommended that we should try to get those jobs into Wales, so that we can have a chance of maintaining the presence of such companies. If these jobs go elsewhere and we end up with screwdriver operations, such companies might leave Wales and go elsewhere. However, I cannot discuss everything that the Committee said in detail; otherwise, we would end up having the same debate that we had then.
	The report reached many conclusions and it made   many recommendations, but I draw the House's   attention to the following, which relates to the   intervention from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). European structural fundsthey remain a vital form of financial support for the Welsh economy, particularly in areas that still have objective 1 statusare shortly to be renegotiated in light of EU enlargement. There is genuine concern that the accession of countries with lower gross domestic products than Wales's will divert those funds away from Wales. While Wales is improving its economy and social structures, it would be detrimental if it lost those important funding streams. We recommended that the Government give a clear undertaking that Wales will not lose out as a result of these negotiations. We also recommended that the Welsh Assembly Government be given the greatest flexibility appropriate to delivering that funding, along with regional selective assistance across Wales. I look to the Government to reassure us that Wales will not lose out as a result of European enlargement.
	We also wish to see a refinement of the UK Government's support that includes the introduction of   a regional element to research and development tax   credits and research councils' grant allocation procedures that would provide for a more equitable spread of Government funds across the UK. At present, Wales does not appear to receive its fair share of Government funding. That needs to be addressed so that Wales can fulfil its great potential.
	During the course of the inquiry, the Ministry of Defence announced that it had decided to relocate its Defence Aviation Repair Agency operations from Wales to England. MOD procurement policy has a significant impact on the economy of nations and regions in the United Kingdom. Wales already is under-represented in that respect, and the relocation of DARA is a further diminution of Government procurement in Wales. We recommended that the Government reverse their decision to move DARA's operations from St.   Athan to England.

Wayne David: Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of manufacturing in Wales, will he clarify whether his Committee found unanimity or a majority view among manufacturers in respect of their attitude towards the European Union?

Martyn Jones: The question put to all manufacturers was whether they would like to be in the euro. Surprisingly, they mainly said that they were not particularly bothered either way so long as there was consistency and stability in the currency. I found that rather surprising because I expected them to want to be in the euro zone, which is why we put the question in the first place.
	Our second major report, as I said earlier, was entitled Police Service, Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour in Wales. We took extensive evidence and were pleased to report that, in the main, the four police forces in Wales were performing well. We welcomed the refinement of the targets contained within the latest national policing plan. Earlier plans had set targets for reductions in the levels of specific crimes, and while they may have been appropriate for some forces in the UK, they were not always appropriate for Welsh forces. For example, attempting to reduce bicycle crime in Dyfed-Powys by 15 per cent. was probably not the most appropriate use of the police's time, since there is virtually no bicycle crime at all in that area. The current plan sets an overall crime reduction target of 15 per cent., which we believe is a much more appropriate goal that will let the Welsh police target local crime and provide a better service for Wales.
	A significant part of the inquiry concentrated on antisocial behaviour, on which the Government have introduced welcome legislation. Indeed, all the Welsh chief constables unanimously approved the range of measures provided by the Government to help them with their tasks, but there is not yet a sophisticated method of monitoring the success of the police in tackling such behaviour. Our report set out some initial concerns about the low number of antisocial behaviour orders issued in Wales compared to England. There was a perception that Welsh forces were not using ASBOs properly. However, as we found in our report, that was not the case.
	Welsh forces have developed strategies for staged intervention that use ASBOs as a measure of last resort. The focus on ASBO numbers means that their methods are not officially counted as successes and, as a result, Welsh forces have appeared to be performing poorly when in fact they are making real headway in tackling antisocial behaviour. For that reason, we call on the Government to introduce a better measurement for success that reflects the Welsh approach.

Elfyn Llwyd: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman and I read the recent report in the Daily Post. He is absolutely correct that five tiers of action are taken before we get to the ASBO. If problems can be sorted out before reaching the ASBO stage, that is surely efficient and good.

Martyn Jones: Absolutely, and our report stressed that fact. We recommended the Welsh approach to the English, as some English forces are probably using far too many ASBOs. The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of tiers. Some forces sent a letter, which cut out 80 per cent. of the problemsjust one letter to the parents sorted it out. Parents often do not know what their childrenit is mainly young people involvedare doing and when informed they can intervene to prevent the bad behaviour. We call it the Welsh approach and believe that it should be used throughout the UK.
	As I said, ASBOs are only one important part of the   police's arsenal, but others have not yet been acknowledged. Credit should be given where it is due, which means that the Government must recognise that the number of ASBOs issued does not automatically equate to levels of success on the ground.
	Finally, I make a plea. Whatever changes take place in the Welsh Affairs Committee during the next Parliament, I would like the Committee's role in working with the Assembly to be continued and enhanced.

Lembit �pik: First, may I   say how delighted I am that we are at last conducting our St. David's day debate? As if to build the suspense, we have had to wait more than a month. I think that I   am speaking for all Members of the Opposition parties in pointing outas, rightly, did the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin)that we have had to await the passing of St. Patrick's day before being able to speak about St. David's day matters. That being the case, let us not look the gift horse in the mouth, but let us use the time as an opportunity to evaluate the words of the Secretary of State for Wales. Sadly, he is no longer in his place, and has obviously had to attend to his other job.

Chris Bryant: He has more interesting things to do than listen to this speech.

Lembit �pik: I shall pass over that comment.
	The Secretary of State said that he viewed his party, the Labour party, as the party of social justice, business success, low mortgages, stability and growth, so let us look further into that. To some extent, I agree, and it would be churlish and rather fatuous to imply that everything that has happened in Wales under the Labour Government is bad. From an economic standpoint, Wales has seen some success stories. One of the greatest is the Airbus organisation. The Airbus A380 is probably the most significant new passenger aircraft of the decade and it will bring considerable work opportunities and prosperity to various parts of Wales.
	As I said in an earlier intervention on the Secretary of State, I believe that Wales should set for itself the goal of being one of the global centres of aerospace excellence. We certainly have the individuals able to achieve it, but what we need is a strategy that overtly focuses on spreading the know-how and value-added business opportunities across the Welsh economy. There is no reason at all why a number of sub-industries related to aerospace could not be in a position to benefit. That applies in rural areas such as my own and in urban areas across Wales. I hope that Wales will take that opportunity and that we will see the political direction and political will to achieve precisely that.
	As an aside, I would point out that I fly aircraft myself. I wanted to apologise to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami)but he is no longer in his placefor saying Hawarden when I should have said Broughton. I do tend to fly into Hawarden more often than Broughton because when I see the Airbus runways of Broughton, I feel that my small light aircraft is unworthy to land in such a Mecca of aerospace engineering.
	The other aspect of economic development related to aerospace is the importance of having a regional air network. My feeling is that the gesture of introducing an Anglesey to Cardiff run is sensible, but that it really should stop in mid-Wales on the way. Until we find a way of getting the relatively small number of people who must get from the north to the south of Wales quickly on their journeys in an expeditious way, we will hold back   the economic development of Wales. I am not suggesting that many people will commute regularly, but we all know that many senior industrialists feel that the inaccessibility of parts of Wales is a drawback that   deters them from basing their businesses there.
	One recent success story that I can speak about with authority is the expansion of Welshpool as a business airport, which has brought economic prosperity to the area. Bob Jones, the airport's owner, has a vision and views the airport as an important addition to the infrastructure of the mid-Wales economy, and I agree with him. The planning approvals necessary for him to expand the airport are commensurate with the strategic focus, which I hope the next Government, of whatever party, will take seriously. A partnership approach is required between the Assembly and Westminster, but I   am confident that Ministers are now making the right noises. I strongly recommend that, in his summation, the Minister gives an assurance that should not be difficult to give, as he has given it before, that Labour will continue its strategic support for the expansion of a Welsh air network.

Roger Williams: I am following closely the thread of my hon. Friend's comments and he failed to mention the attractions of the international airport at Llandegly, which has just opened another runway. I would like that to be included in his network for Wales.

Lembit �pik: My hon. Friend is describing his dream of a Eurohub in Llandegly, which has about 20 residents and a sign saying Llandegly international airport, terminals 1 and 2. I watch developments with interest.
	On manufacturing, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) rightly outlined some of the important findings that the Welsh Affairs Committee highlighted. There is serious concern that smaller manufacturing companies are being driven to the wall, largely by competition from abroad where labour costs are lower. When focusing on the big work opportunities of 10,000 or 3,000 jobs, we must ensure that we do not take our eye off the ball and the smaller job opportunities of 20, 50 or even five jobs. First, those small companies may become large companies, and secondly, a large proportion of jobs in Wales depend on small companies. Never is that more evident than in mid-Wales and in rural areas of north and south Wales. The difficulty is that the dynamics of the economic cycle tend to have an effect on all small companies at once, so there may be many small business closures, as we had under the Conservatives in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We have had a period of relative stability, but whatever Government are elected after the anticipated election on 5 May, I hope that the Welsh Development Agency and Ministers at Westminster and the Welsh Assembly will ensure that small companies receive help when they most need it.

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who knows that 90 per cent. of employees in Wales work in   the small and medium sector. Does he recall the days of the Development Board for Rural Wales when his   constituency had almost full employment and   Meirionnydd Nant Conwy also did well? Unfortunately, although the Welsh Development Agency has done well in many ways, it has not performed well in the small and medium sector and all of us in mid and north Wales have suffered as a result.

Lembit �pik: I concur with the hon. Gentleman's important point. I am not making a party political point, because Labour Members have had the same experience. I look forward to hearing the Minister's perspective.
	On the upside, some companies have done superbly well. Sidoli's, Control Techniques, Laura Ashley and Texplan are four in my area that have consolidated and,   despite some shaky times, become world leaders, particularly Control Techniques and Laura Ashley. However, the economic position is a mixed bag of good and badit is not as unequivocally positive as the Secretary of State suggested.
	The Secretary of State spoke about other areas, so let us look at his claims. I suppose that he would say in evidence of his claim that his party is the party for social justice, but the main period of stability for the Welsh Assembly was when there was a coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party. During that period class sizes fell significantly, the Tir Gofal scheme introduced environmental opportunities for agriculture and museum charges were scrapped in Wales in advance of other parts of the United Kingdom. I would have more belief in the heady claims of the Secretary of State if those initiatives had happened at the behest of the Labour party, but they came from a Liberal Democrat manifesto. I humbly suggest that Wales was best served with the Liberal Democrats in power when we were able to provide a guiding, sage and mature hand to the impetuosity that we have come to expect from Labour.

Julie Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that free access to museums is a Labour policy?

Lembit �pik: Jenny Randerson, the Assembly Member who is also a Liberal Democrat, was the key mechanic of the legislation that made that possible. The hon. Lady should declare an interest. I understand her need to defend the Welsh Assembly, but I am askingit is for the voters to decide whom they believewhy, if   it was the unbridled and committed policy of the Labour party to increase environmental opportunities for farmers, decrease class sizes and reintroduce school milk, has that happened only in places where the Liberal Democrats have been in power?
	The Secretary of State said that his party was pro-devolution. I know that some Labour Members are, and perhaps he is too. However, it is frustrating to see the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly apparently dragging his feet and stalling in the face of a great opportunity to work hand in hand with other pro-devolution parties such as the Liberal Democrats to   deliver the recommendations of the Richard commission. In the same context, it is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that his party is working hard to resolve the issues of the Welsh health service, but we all know that there is a disparity and that Labour has failed to deliver the improvements that have been seen across the border. That is even more galling for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), which are mainly that there are different waiting times for the same hospitals because of the existence of a border. The Secretary of State uttered fine words in his promises to reform that, but we must judge on results and at the moment the results are scant indeed.
	Before moving on to the Conservatives, I want to raise a local issue of such importance that it needs to go   on the record. Right hon. and hon. Members will be   aware of the projected development of a large liquid   natural gas facility in Pembroke Dock. It unquestionably has potential for jobs and will increase the economic prosperity of the area, but I am worried that the safety aspects of having such a large LNG plant there have not been sufficiently considered. The explosive potential of LNG is significant, and although it does not explode in the same way as TNT, it is capable of causing a large enough conflagration to incinerate the neighbourhood. I make the point because those who are concerned about the health and safety aspects are   frustrated that the matter has not been sufficiently aired in this Chamber. I hope that the Minister will go at least as far as saying that he will consider those concerns. For a bonus for 10, it would be excellent if he was willing to meet and discuss those concerns with the objectors.
	I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Leominster, but did not understand it. He said that despite the cuts in public spending that his party promised, the budget in Wales would be immune[Interruption.] I am happy to have a dialogue with him if he wishes to intervene, but that must wait. I am still troubledI sometimes wake up at night thinking about thisabout the exchange in the Welsh Grand Committee when the Secretary of State said:
	It is useful to have all this on the record; is the hon. Gentleman saying that he has a unique exemption for Wales from the shadow Chancellor's 35 billion worth of cuts and that Wales will be completely immune to those cuts?
	The hon. Member for Leominster replied:
	The block grant is immune.[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 7 December 2004; c.11.]

Bill Wiggin: I urge the hon. Gentleman not to lose sleep at night and, particularly, not to listen to the Secretary of State when he talks about Conservative policy. I can confirm that there are no plans to cut the Welsh block grant.

Lembit �pik: It gets more curious still. I have a B in A-level maths.

Chris Bryant: You were robbed.

Lembit �pik: Perhaps I was, but I am happy with that. I got an A in economics. [Interruption.] Perhaps they were robbed, but that is not a get-out for the hon. Member for Leominster. I simply fail to understand how he can get up and tell us that the block grant for Wales is immune from the Tory spending plans when everybody here knows that there is a direct link between what is spent in England and what goes into Wales. I   have explicitly heard from him that he does not intend to reform the Barnett formula. Therefore, there is only one possible logical conclusion: he is wrong.
	If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene to explain the position, I will be happy to hear him, but I do not understand why he expects anyone in the Chamber to accept something that is patently wrong, and I do not expect any member of the electorate in Wales to be hoodwinked.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point, but he is being a little harsh. Perhaps he   will agree that it would be worth while for the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman on Wales to write to Members who take part in this debate to set out clearly exactly what is happening and how the Welsh block will somehow be protected without cuts elsewhere.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman, once again, makes a helpful point. I hope that the hon. Member for Leominster will concur.

Bill Wiggin: I understand why the hon. Gentleman is getting in such a pickle over this, and he has my full sympathy. His view start with the premise that he believes what the Secretary of State has told him about the 35 billion of cuts, and that premise is fundamentally wrong.

Lembit �pik: The best that I can do is assume that the Secretary of State is naive for believing what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am pretty sure that the Secretary of State quoted him, but let us not be distracted by that. A good suggestion has been made, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek to clear the matter up. It is very much in his interest to do so, because I will not mislead the public about Conservative party policy if it   is explained to me in a way that I can understand. At this point, I sincerely believe that he is trying to say something that he cannot support. My conclusion is that, if the Conservatives form the next Government, the Barnett formula would mean an effective cut in what is planned for Wales.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Given the offer that we have both made to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we fail to have an explanation, the only version that we can give to the electorate in our respective constituencies is that there is no explanation for what has just been said?

Lembit �pik: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can have this conversation with the hon. Member for Leominster as they roam the streets of Ogmore looking for crime.

Roger Williams: Looking for gun crime.

Lembit �pik: Gun crime, indeed. I note with interest the reluctance of the hon. Member for Leominster to go looking for crime with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). On this occasion, I will defend the hon. Member for Leominster, because he knows that such an endeavour would be pointless. Once people got wind of the fact that he, as the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, was roaming the streets, they would stay at home for their own safety. Crime would be almost zero. It raises the spectre that he might choose to pick on the hon. Member for Ogmore just to keep the crime statistics up on that evening.
	My serious concern is that the hon. Member for Leominster simply cannot expect anyone in the Chamber or any elector in Wales to attempt to forget what actually happened when the Conservatives were in government: crime doubled. If that is a testimony to failed policies, so be it. This debate is not primarily about crime, but I counsel Conservatives to recognise that the best guide to future behaviour is past experience. Therefore, there is a long way to go for many of us before we can believe that the Conservatives' policies will reduce crime. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), and he reminds me of another point that I nearly did not make, but now it is too late.
	Conservative Members voiced considerable criticism of the cost of the new building for the Welsh Assembly, but I do not like hypocrisy. I point out that some have sailed close to the wind when it comes to hypocrisy, so I   would never suggest that any Member of the Chamber is a hypocrite. I would be ruled out of order if I did. I   simply observe that the hon. Member for Ribble Valleywho is probably one of the finest Secretaries of State for Wales that there never was and, I fear, never will behas consistently criticised the Welsh Assembly for thinking of spending about 67 million on a building, while he accepted a room in Portcullis House, which cost three and a half times that amount.

Nigel Evans: I had to. This is almost a tradition in this debate, and a bit like pantomime. I will go through it again. Does the hon. Gentleman believe in first past the post or proportional representation? If he believes in proportional representation, why did he accept a seat in   the House under first past the post?

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman is right. Perhaps for the last time in this Parliament, the public will be treated to my standard response. Proportional representation was not an option for me, but not going into Portcullis House was an option for him. If he is so offended, he could have rent his clothes in rage and worked from home. Modern technology makes that possible. Instead, he chose to take that place. I will take no lessons from the Conservatives about a new building for Welsh devolution.
	The final point that I would make about the Conservatives is the astonishing risk that the shadow Secretary of State for Wales has taken tonight in expressing his views on Welsh devolution. He said that he would vote for the abolition of the Welsh Assembly, but that his opinion did not count. If his leaderhimself a Welshmangets wind of that, the hon. Gentleman's opinion probably will not count. In my judgment, it is   simply not plausible to think that a man who wants to be the Secretary of State for Wales would have no influence on the party position that the Conservatives would hold in the event of a referendum. If he seriously means that, it calls into question why he would want to take a job in a Cabinet that, according to him, would overtly be opposed to his view. That is not tenable. It is certainly a much more serious divergence of policy than what the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said.

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman must be a bit more straightforward. I have been completely clear. I have expressed my opinion that if I were to have a vote, I   would not be able to use it because I do not live in Wales at the moment. That is pretty open and honest, and I hope that he will respect that. He is seeking to suggest that I do not care or that I have a separate agenda, but that is not the case. I have made it very clear what the policy is. We will give a referendum to the people of Wales and will abide by their decision. That referendum will have a variety of choices, including empowerment and abolition. Unlike the Secretary of State, he should steer well clear of discussing Conservative policy.

Lembit �pik: I am not even accusing the hon. Gentleman of sieving. I am saying that he should have the confidence that those in opposition and the other parties here would tolerate a degree of dissent in terms of party policy. We are fairly broad churches, and we have not created the problem for him. His leader fired one of his colleagues for a much more insignificant offence.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's positionthis is the practical pointI am not seeking his resignation or sacking, but we have to recognise that if the Secretary of State for Wales wanted the abolition of the Welsh Assembly, any reasonable politician would assume that that would have currency in the Government of the day. I shall not push it further than that, but I counsel the hon. Gentleman to recognise that his points of view have currency and are heard and listened to outside the Chamber, so it is reasonable for me to highlight that.
	On what could happen after 5 May when the Liberal Democrats form the Government of this country, we would fulfil the opportunities that the current Government have not taken on council tax. I am convinced that local income tax is a fairer form of taxation than council tax. We do not need to go into detail, but let us recognise a few facts. The number of properties that moved up bands in Wales was not the same as the number that went down. Some 33 per cent. went up and 8 per cent. went down. I guarantee that, on balance, a lot of people will pay more council tax as a result of the rebanding.
	If anyone wants to pretend that that is fair, let us recognise what is going on in Adamsdown in Cardiff, for example. It has a lower income than 90 per cent. of Wales, but 90 per cent. of properties moved up bands as a result of council tax rebanding. Where is the justice in that? At the same time, Llangyfelach in Swansea has a higher income than 85 per cent. of Wales, but there only 10 per cent. of properties moved up bands. That is why the Liberal Democrats are so opposed to council tax: it takes no account of ability to pay. By comparison and by contrast, local income tax is based entirely on one's ability to pay. It is not based on a person's home, but on their earnings. What could be fairer than that?
	Having fought tooth and nail against the changes that the Conservatives made to local government funding, we are in the ironic situation of seeing the Labour party defend the Conservatives' proposal. The Tories introduced council tax, not Labour, but it has stuck too close to a policy that it inherited and could easily have changed.
	There is a glimmer of hope, because I believe that we will have a debate, if things come to pass, on a cross-party basis, and we will put the matter to rights in a year or so. I counsel the Minister not to corner his party too far down that line, because in so doing he makes it difficult for Labour to take the policy on, even if he is persuaded by the benefits of local income tax. It will be the Government and not us who make it look like a defeat for the Labour party and a victory for the Liberal Democrats.
	By the same token, it is important to recognise the injustice of tuition and top-up fees to Welsh students. Perhaps of all the social policies that Labour has introduced, this one upsets me the most. I remember campaigning with many former Labour student activists who are now Labour Members of Parliament against such ideas when they were proposed by the Conservative Government. Indeed, let us not forget that Labour promised to legislate against such charges on students. On this issue, I stand four-square with the Conservatives in feeling let down by a direct breaking of an election promise.
	The students have not forgotten that because they have got debt, and some people have been put off going to university for fear of debt. More than anything, however, I believe that the Government have introduced a tax on learning. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats intend, as a high priority, to abolish tuition and top-up fees if the public choose to elect us to government.

Huw Irranca-Davies: If I recall correctly, I stood on a platform in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), in the June 2001 general election, and we both propounded our support for some form of graduate taxation. What has been proposed by the Government might seem iniquitous to the hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that it is fairer than the graduate tax because at least there is a time limit? With the graduate tax, people carry on paying until they are in the grave.

Lembit �pik: We do support a higher rate of tax on 98 per cent. or soI think that that is the right figureof the top wage earners.

Huw Irranca-Davies: No

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman does not have to agree with me, but I am answering his question. In my book, as the majority of the richest people in this country are graduates, it is not unreasonable to charge a 50 per cent. rate of income tax on those earning more than 100,000 a year.
	Is it not interesting how history changes politics? Not so long ago, the Labour party would have said that we should have even higher taxation for the richest people. Now we hear respectable and effective politicians, such as the hon. Gentleman, advocating policies that in the not-too-distant past would have branded him a Conservative. I am sad that Labour has moved so far away from the fairest form of taxation, which is income tax. Above all, I am frustrated that these fees were introduced on the basis of a false premisea promise in a Labour manifesto that it would not introduce such fees for students.
	Once again, it is for the electorate to decide whether they have accepted the Labour party's arguments for those charges. It is also a matter of record, however, that in Scotland, the Labour party, working in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, took a different view. I do not think that the Labour party is as homogeneous on the subject as it might wish. I ask Labour Members again, in the spirit of this debate, to consider whether they really want to be stuck with a policy that is iniquitous and in effect creates a higher marginal rate of tax for people on relatively low incomes than it does for those who earn more than 100,000 a year.
	Much more could be said about free personal care for the elderly, the 100 extra a month on pensions at 75 and having gone to war in Iraq. Let us be clear: the Liberal Democrats opposed that war and remain convinced that history proved us right to do so. Fundamentally, should there be an election in the near future, what the public have to decide is whether they are satisfied that the old parties can make such changes in their approach to politics that things will improve, or whether they are willing to take a chance on a party that is transparent about its tax increase on those who earn more than 100,000 a year, able to afford free long-term care for the elderly, the abolition of tuition and top-up fees, and the replacement of council tax with a local income tax, and can make those figures add up in a public way.
	The great thing about democracy in this country is that people have a choice. The exciting thing about the election is that they can choose between parties that have a differential. They can choose between the two old partiesConservative and Labourwhich look ever more the same, and the Liberal Democrats, who have had the courage to stand apart. I accept that there is Plaid Cymru as well, but it will never form the Government of this country. One cannot pretend that it has ambitions beyond Wales.
	As the public will read every word of the debateas they surely willI hope that they will make the comparison between what different speakers have said here and recognise that some of us remember that politicians are elected not to rule but to serve. In so doing, we should make not just our constituencies proud, but our public inspired to believe that politicians in this place are here for the right reasons. If they feel that the Liberal Democrats fit that bill, I hope that they vote for us on 5 May.

Betty Williams: I very much welcome this debate and the opportunity to speak in it, especially as it now seems certain to be the final occasion in this Parliament on which we will be able to debate purely Welsh issues.
	In the Queen's Speech last November, we were offered two Wales-specific Bills, both enthusiastically welcomed by my hon. Friends from across the country. Alas, election timetables wait for no legislation, however valuable, and it is obvious that at least one of those Bills is going no further in this Session. That means that today's debate is even more important. It gives me the opportunity to call for the reintroduction of both the   Transport (Wales) Bill and, if necessary, the Public Service Ombudsman (Wales) Bill, which was debated earlier today, at the earliest opportunity after the general election. I would like to think that that plea will be heeded by those on both Front Benches and supported by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
	Unfortunately, the commitment of the Tory party to Wales is in some doubt, bearing it in mind that its final Secretary of State for Wales represented a constituency in North Yorkshire. I hope that I will not embarrass my predecessor in Conwy, who is now in another place, if I   suggest that an excellent home-grown choice was available to be Secretary of State, one who would have brought genuine commitment to the needs of Wales.
	I take to heart the concern of the Archbishop of Canterbury about not exploiting people's fear in any general election. I think that we can leave such tactics to the Conservatives, who have proved themselves to be past masters at that. Last week in my constituency, a letter was distributed which purported to be signed by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). It claimed that since 1999 violent crime had risen by 96 per cent. in Conwy. The reaction from the chief constable of North Wales to similar claims relating to the Clwyd, West constituency has been well documented in the media over the past few days. Having seen at first hand the excellent work being done by North Wales police in tackling all forms of criminal activity, I can entirely understand why Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom took such offence at that misleading publicity. Although there can be no room whatsoever for complacency, particularly about violent crime, it is worth quoting the chief constable. He said:
	It is well established that crime has been falling for years, both locally and nationally.
	Whipping up the fear of crime is one thing; using non-comparable statistics to do so is quite another. Nowhere does the Conservatives' material note the changes of classification of offences which occurred during the time frame used. For example, the number of offences classed as violent crime increased significantly. A violent attack on three people is now counted as three crimes, not one. The figure for recorded crime is now all reported crimes, not just those proven. As the Association of Chief Police Officers commented:
	If we want to increase the fear of crime, then the selective use of statistics can help in doing just that.
	I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of North Wales police. As I   mentioned earlier, I am particularly proud that the western division of the force, which covers half of my constituency, recently recorded the highest detection figures in the UK and that the other two divisions in North Wales ranked in the top ten.
	I certainly have no wish to play down violent crime as a serious issue in Wales. In my constituency, we experience problems related in particular to low-level violent offences and antisocial behaviour. However, significant steps have been taken to solve these problems. The Dyna Ddigon campaign run by North Wales police has made effective use of the extra resources and penalties provided by the Government. Perhaps the most dramatic example of that in my constituency has been the introduction of a dispersal order in the walled town of Conwy. This has helped to stop that world heritage site from becoming a no-go area for local residents owing to night-time antisocial behaviour. I was extremely pleased to have helped obtain an extension of the order and look forward to the community and police working together to achieve a lasting solution to that problem.
	The fear of crime of course plays most heavily with pensioners. It is to avoid unnecessarily blighting lives through irrational fear that politicians of all colours must behave responsibly when discussing the issues of crime and disorder. Conwy has one of the highest proportions of retired people of any constituency in the   country, so the positive effect of many of the Government's policies towards older people has been more pronounced there than elsewhere. The pension credit, the minimum income guarantee, the winter fuel allowance and free TV licences for those over 75 have made real differences to the lives of many pensioners in my constituency. I know, however, that not only do they, quite rightly in my view, demand more support but that members of a younger generation have begun to worry about their own security in retirement.
	In any third-term Administration, I would hope to see   a broader picture painted of how the pensions system will be managed in the future, guaranteeing the   universality of the state pension alongside the extra help for the poorest pensioners already introduced by   the Government. The 200 bonus announced by the   Chancellor has been warmly welcomed by my constituents, particularly following this year's rebanding exercise in Wales. I look forward to the permanent guarantee of assistance with council tax bills, which will be required to assist the many pensioners in my constituency who feel penalised by a booming housing market. Any such scheme, however, needs to be targeted to help not only the poorest households but those with modest savings and income, rather than subsidising the most well-off, as suggested by the Conservative party.
	I commend the Welsh Assembly Government for   their policy of reducing prescription charges. I look forward to the not-too-distant day when free prescriptions will return to all in Wales, leading the way, I hope, for the whole United Kingdom, just as on free bus travel and food in schools. Although the response to Jamie Oliver's crusade has been as strong in Wales as elsewhere, the Assembly Government have already shown themselves to be well aware of the importance of diet to children and their education. Since January, a pilot scheme offering free breakfasts to primary schoolchildren has been running in 48 schools, prior to being rolled out across Wales. The scheme has, where possible, incorporated the local sourcing of ingredients and the provision of a healthy range of   choices for children. The provision of breakfasts has   been shown to improve children's concentration and educational achievement, as well as having an educational aspect of its own in terms of diet, nutrition and health.
	Significant work on children's diet is taking place in   my constituency at the school of psychology of the   university of Wales, Bangor. Led by Professor Fergus Lowe and Dr. Pauline Horne, a research team has developed a programme to increase children's consumption of fruit and vegetables. This, the food dude healthy eating programme, has been trialled in England, Scotland and Ireland, as well as in my own constituency. Studies show that merely presenting fruit and vegetables to children is not sufficient to ensure high consumption. The food dude programme, however, has proved very effective in bringing about changes in children's eating habits. Once again, I hope that the Welsh experience can be replicated across the nation.
	I had looked forward to a full debate on the Transport (Wales) Bill during this Session.

Lembit �pik: On a matter related to young people, does the hon. Lady accept that one issue that we face in Wales is the absence of affordable child care, which is causing a significant problem for many families? Does she agree that we need to look at that, because it is probably holding people back from educational opportunities and from returning to economically beneficial work?

Betty Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I do not recognise the picture that he is painting, and I advise him to check with his Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Assembly and get the true facts about what is going on with child care in Wales. We have a good record and a good story to tell, and I   can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is what we will be telling the people of Wales when we get the opportunity following the announcement of the election date. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to say that.
	I was going to talk about the Transport (Wales) Bill. Wales faces a unique set of issues relating to its transport system, which I am convinced would be best addressed by the Assembly, as the Bill proposes. Already, the influence of the Assembly Government on the all-Wales rail franchise has been demonstrated by, among other improvements, the increasing number of direct trains between north and south Wales. However, we shall need much greater control over the franchise from Cardiff before we see a rail renaissance of the type currently being enjoyed by Scotland under the auspices of the devolved Government there. Scotland has seen new stations, increased frequencies, new trains and funding for at least three openings or reopenings of entire lines, at a time when dark mutterings are heard in England and Wales about line closures and service withdrawals.
	Devolution of powers over rail services would, I   believe, produce a service more in tune with the needs of the Welsh people. I was unpleasantly surprised to be informed recently by a constituent that Arriva Trains Wales was not keeping to its franchise and passenger charter commitment to provide a Welsh language telephone information line. Having telephoned the line myself, I found it to be based in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The supervisor told me that the ability to provide a Welsh language service was, unsurprisingly, hampered by an inability to recruit Welsh speakers in north-east England. So my Welsh-speaking constituents, who constitute a majority at the western end of the constituency, are denied access to train information in their first language because the company operating the services is unwilling to open a call centre in Wales, where that service could be provided. That cannot be allowed to continue.
	I would hope that as well as improving the train services themselves, the Welsh Assembly would pay more attention than the Strategic Rail Authority has to the finer details of the service provided. Unfortunately, the Bill as proposed would not give the Assembly power over long-distance Anglo-Welsh services, such as the Virgin west coast services that link Bangor and Llandudno, in my constituency, to London. As a regular user, and on many occasions a sufferer, of those services, I am in absolute agreement with the demands from my   constituents for improvements to the route. In particular, I call for the replacement of the five-car Supervoyager units with something more suitable for the service in terms of capacity, comfort and catering. In that context, I was astonished to find that seven Meridian nine-car units, which are improved versions of   the Voyagers, were sitting idle. The trains were originally ordered for Midland Mainline but were prevented from running because the SRA withdrew consent for new London-to-Leeds services. They would be ideally suited to the north Wales route, but having corresponded with the SRA and Virgin Trains, I am left with the impression of two organisations failing to communicate properly with each other and of a blinkered attitude on the part of the SRA towards any use of the trains other than selling them to the Republic of Ireland.
	After being told by the SRA that there was no commercial case for new trains for that route, I was all the more surprised to receive a consultation document from its west coast department on the future of services on the London to north Wales route. That made it clear that the SRA was actively considering the purchase of another set of new trains for the service, for delivery in a couple of years' time. Why force north Wales passengers to wait so long for improvements and spend millions on brand new trains when there are sets available for the route now? That lack of joined-up thinking in the rail industry is benefiting no one but the car industry. The economic future of my constituency, along with neighbouring constituencies, depends on that rail service.
	I hope not only that the Transport (Wales) Bill will be reintroduced in the next Parliament, but that when it is   debated, the Government will listen closely to the arguments for giving the Assembly some influence over long-distance rail services, which are as crucial as the shorter-distance ones.

Hywel Williams: Is the hon. Lady aware that the Minister, in replying to me a few weeks ago, said that long-distance travel, say from her constituency to London, is specifically excluded from the Transport (Wales) Bill? How does she react to that?

Betty Williams: I said that in my preamble; perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening, but if he cares to read Hansard tomorrow he will be able to confirm that.
	Over the past eight years, the Government have achieved a lot for the people of Wales, and I believe that they can offer a lot more in the future. The introduction of the child trust fundmy son and daughter-in-law very much welcomed that when their first child was born, and I was very proud, as well as becoming a grandmother for the first timeand further improvements to the tax credit system will be of great benefit to hard-working families in my constituency. The Government will continue the work of moving children and older people out of poverty.
	Further investment in getting more police officers on to the streets and tackling antisocial behaviour will continue to help people regain control of our towns and villages. With youth unemployment all but wiped out in my constituency, we need to increase the help available to those on incapacity benefit to return to work. As is the   case in so much of Wales, I have many constituents who have suffered industrial injuries and who feel marginalised from economic prosperity. We must step up our work to end that marginalisation, through programmes to help them back to employment or to benefits of a level that allow them to live with dignity.
	It is vital that time is found in the next Parliament for legislation that will build on the steps already taken by this Government to make Wales a fairer, safer and more prosperous place.

Elfyn Llwyd: I   hope in the few minutes allowed to refer to themes that are important to me and my partyaffordable housing and safer communities. We have already had a discussion about law and order, and I hope later to come on to that. I shall not fan the flames or try to whip up any antipathy, but shall instead speak from the experience that I have gained as a practitioner in law and from what I have seen over the past two or three years in various parts of Wales.
	I shall refer first to affordable housing. I am pleased that we are able to discuss it now in a far more mature way than we were able to do before the last election. Indeed, I have gratefully accepted an opportunity to speak with the Under-Secretary of State on Wednesday about a discussion document that we issued in January. It contains various pointers that we hope will inform the argument and may bring about a better climate for young people in particular, and for everyone in general so that everyone can afford a roof above their head.
	Ordinary people trying to set up home in Wales are obviously hampered by the huge rise in prices. There is no doubt that the rising cost of private rentals has also made life difficult for many people. Prices have soared. Many first-time buyers, or hopeful first-time buyers, are unable to secure mortgages to buy property. That is a fairly obvious point.What is not quite so obvious is that house prices in Wales rose by 124 per cent. between 1997 and 2004. Significantly, 82 per cent. of that growth occurred between 2001 and 2004. The increase in prices was a modest 1.1 per cent. between 1997 and 1998, which was well within inflation. There was a 5 per cent. rise from 1998 to 1999, which was a warning, and then there were 9 per cent. and 6 per cent. rises. The trend has emerged: Welsh prices have outpaced the UK average. The shortage of affordable housing has spread not only to rural retreats but to city hotspots and to the valleys. Prices have doubled in Pembrokeshire in the past three years.
	What can be done about that? I am not professing to have all the answers, but I think that my colleagues and I have come up with a few that might be interesting and   worthy of further consideration. I will be giving a copy of our document to the Minister on Wednesday. It was issued for consultation in January, and hitherto the feedback has been fairly positive. We have engaged with many societies and individuals on the issue. Decent housing does not have to be beyond anyone's reachaction by various levels of government could and should make a real difference to the amount and range of affordable housing in Wales, including social housing. By using its budgetary and planning regulatory powers, and working with local authorities, the Assembly could give practical support to community housing initiatives, safeguard communities and help councils to enhance local housing resources.
	I shall refer to one or two measures. For example, there is the approach of establishing a community land trust unit within the Assembly. With its own budget line, its functions would include assisting community land trusts with set-up costs and advice, guaranteeing low-cost loans to support community ownership of clusters of homes and/or the purchase of land on which to build them. Local authorities could be allowed to prioritise local housing needs and the authorities could be granted the right in certain circumstances to take a percentage of   the enhanced land value as planning gain when developers apply for change of use. Also, and importantly, local authorities could be encouraged to require a percentage of affordable homes in all new developments of more than 10 homes.
	That is being done on an ad hoc basis in some council areas. I would like to see it spread as good practice throughout Wales. We would also like to see support for council tenants who wish to buy in the private sector. Crucially, we would like councils to be given the right not to implement the right to buy. We would like more support for the homebuy initiative, and that is really a cry for more money. It is quite a good scheme that is worked through the Welsh Assembly Government. It needs more funding if it is to make a real impact but   it is a good start. We want a benchmark for more affordable homes and to identify surplus land owned by public bodies that could be suitable to use for the building of those homes.
	We want to stop the decline in social housing. As tenants have exercised their right to buy council homes the stock has shrunk considerably, with local authorities now possessing precious little social housing. One of the obvious answers is to support housing investment by councils. There is little indication at present that that will happen. On the contrary, the Treasury has made it clear that it will not even allow local authorities to set up   companies that could borrow for the purpose of investing in housing. The UK Treasury has turned down an Assembly request to allow wholly owned local authority companies in Wales. It has advised the Welsh   Minister with responsibilities for social justice and regeneration that despite a good case outlining the   benefits and the limited effect on public borrowing of the proposal, it would not be acceptable because it would lead to further pressure on public expenditure limits.
	Establishing a public investment trust to raise finance   for Welsh housing could circumvent Treasury restrictions. If it were set up, for example, on lines similar to Glas Cymru, the company that owns Welsh water, the trust would probably succeed. I believe that that is a thought worth pursuing.
	I will not shy away from the fact that there needs to be a firmer approach to second homes. I have argued long and hard about the issue. It does not matter who buys second homeswhether it is a Welsh speaker from Cardiff or someone from Peking, those homes are empty for most of the year. They contribute to the run-down of local services, of the chapels, of churches, of schools, of   shops, of public transport and of the local pub, for example. They are a social problem. Let us not beat about the bush. I would like to ensureI introduced a Bill on the issue back in 1993that where there is a   substantial number of second homes, the local planning authority should be able to bring in change-of-use criteria, under which someone who wanted to purchase a second home in the area would have to check with the council to ascertain whether the percentage of second homes that it allows in the locality had been reached.
	That is not unfair to the prospective purchasers. They would know precisely where they stood. There are linguistically sensitive areas, such as places that my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and I represent, where the percentage of second homes might be quite low. However, even within my constituency at Aberdyfi, there are a huge number already. I am not proposing cutting down on them, but I   am saying that for future development we must take into account what is sustainable in any given community. Very often, there is an absence of use of local services, and clearly there will be a deleterious effect upon the Welsh language and culture.
	There has been some movement on council tax, but I   believe that we must bite the bullet and examine planning restrictions. At the end of the day, the Welsh language belongs to every one of us in this place, and beyond to everybody in Britain. We must protect it, and   I have outlined one way of doing so. I think that it is a positive way forward. It will not pull the wool over anyone's eyes if we adopt this approach. Interestingly enough, I spoke with a Cabinet Minister about the proposal before the last election. He shall remain nameless, but he was fully persuaded of the use clause idea. Unfortunately, it became a minority opinion in the Cabinet at the time and did not succeed. I honestly believe that it is worth having another look at it.
	I have referred to community land trusts. Something like that is happening in my home village of Llanuwchllyn, where a group of youngsters have got together. Rather than just complaining from the sidelines, they are looking for spare land. They are coming close to doing a deal with the local council for that land to be transferred to the trust at nil or nominal value. It is to be hoped that affordable homes will be built on that land, initially to let or as a part buy for local youngsters who are unable to get into the housing market.
	I shall give the House a snapshot. Some so-called affordable housing was built in Llanuwchllyn. It consisted of nice little starter homes. They were semi-detached with small gardens and they were selling for 168,000. One couple came to me and the young lady was in tears. She has a good teaching jobindeed, both she and her husband-to-be have good jobs as he is a farmer and does some other work as well. However, when their joint income was totalled it was clear that they did not have a snowball's chance in hell of obtaining a mortgage, even at four and a half times their joint salary. They were totally out of it. Even with the homebuy contribution from Cardiff it still would not work.
	The issue is critical and, if we are to serve the needs of our constituents, we need to get together to try to come up with some answers. I am sure that that is not beyond us if we pool our skills, lobby at the necessary levels of government and get something going. We cannot sit back and do nothingthat would be to abrogate a serious responsibility to the people of Wales.
	I have referred to affordable housing and I shall now move on to safer communities. We hear often that social housing leads to crimeno, social exclusion leads to crime, but also partly social housing

Wayne David: You said it.

Elfyn Llwyd: Yes, I did say it. It was a mistake. The hon. Gentleman never makes a mistake except when he intervenes on me. Who knows, he might make another mistake.
	I do not believe that social exclusion has to lead to crime. The equation is not as simple as that. I believe, however, that social exclusion is a factor in the causation of crime, along with the lack of healthy living, a clean environment, good, affordable housing and decent, well-paid jobs. There is great concern about behaviour that disturbs the community, but the problem is perceived to be far worse than it is in reality. In the 200304 British crime survey, 42 per cent. of respondents thought that antisocial behaviour had become worse over the previous two years, and only 8 per cent. thought that it had improved. I do not know what barometer those individuals were using, but the perception of crime is always far worse than the reality, and that may also be true of antisocial behaviour. Unfortunately, however, such behaviour has visible results, including vandalism, litter, graffiti and so on, which, in turn, lead to more serious crime. Disturbing antisocial behaviour, whether criminal or not, has a negative effect on the extent to which people feel comfortable in their own community and on their perception of it as a safe place in which to raise their families.
	A stable community can be achieved only by taking   an holistic approach to improving people's lives. Enforcement deals with today's problems, but prevention and education will take care of the future. We need to get to grips with the causes and consequences of crime alike. Locking people up and   throwing away the key seldom makes a positive difference or makes our communities safer in the long-term. As an experienced practitioner in criminal law, I   know that young offenders often learn more about crime in prison. There are almost 80,000 people in prison in Britain, which easily makes it the imprisonment capital of Europe. The people of the   British isles are clearly not intrinsically worse than anyone else, so we must be getting something wrong.
	The best place to tackle crime is in the community itself. Plaid Cymru advocates the extension of community-based penalties, which would require additional, properly funded and experienced probation officers. I know from my own experience that such orders work and make the reoffending rate far lower. I   accept that they require resources, but offenders themselves are seen to make a contribution to the community in which they have offended. Greater support for victims and witnesses is an important step in ensuring that people feel safer in their communities, and good work has begun to provide that. Two thirds of property crime that comes before the courts arises from a drugs-related offence, so there is a paramount need for drug addiction to be seen and treated for what it isan illness. The number of people experimenting with drugs is growing, and although the vast majority will not become drug users, we cannot ignore the social problems that result from drug and alcohol abuse and addiction.
	Strong and vibrant communities are the best places in which people with drug and alcohol problems can recover. High-quality rehabilitation programmes are the most effective way of helping problem users to reintegrate into society. Plaid Cymru would like all moneys collected via Crown courts from the confiscation of drugs offence money to be ring-fenced to secure rehabilitation places for people in recovery. It is not a nice thing to discuss, but no one in the Chamber can put his hand on his heart and say that there is not a drugs problem in our communities. We need such facilities in every part of Wales. It is not simply an urban problem; it is just as much a rural problem. We should tackle this huge problem head on and aim to secure better rehabilitation.
	I am not claiming that the confiscated money would be enough, but it would be a start. The Government must recognise that adequate funding for rehab is a sound investment in safer communities. They must invest soon in adequate additional rehabilitation places. Plaid Cymru also believes that early education is crucial in helping to prevent problems developing in the first place, so we call for the delivery of an effective drugs education programme in every school in Wales, using trained peripatetic teachers to serve groups of schools.
	We all know that alcohol-fuelled behaviour has been increasing alarmingly, harming individuals and society, not to mention police budgets. The Government famously targeted thousands of young people by text message shortly before the last election, advising them to vote Labour if they wanted 24-hour drinking. In the meantime, they produced a strategy to reduce the harm caused by alcohol drinking, which is hardly an example of joined-up thinking. Twenty-four-hour drinking is probably one of the few pledges that new Labour is   likely to deliver, with its proposed new licensing laws. Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales, will continue to oppose 24-hour licensing, which places heavy additional burdens on the police, causes further harm to the health of vulnerable people and puts smaller local publicans out of business. Heaven help people who live near licensed premises and have to put up with noisy exchanges all night long.

Wayne David: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a key part of the Licensing Act 2003 gives more power to local authorities to determine what is best for their local communities?

Elfyn Llwyd: Yes, but it is akin to the old licensing system for music on licensed premises. Local authorities, rather than the courts, were responsible for such licences. It was not a brilliant system then, and I am not sure that it will be a brilliant system now. I might be wrong, but heaven forbid that I should live next door to a pub with a 24-hour licence. If licensing is carried out sympathetically, fine. In 24 months' time, perhaps we can have this argument again and I might accept that I   am wrong. However, at the moment it appears to be a dodgy policy.
	I am not being patronising when I say that educating people, especially the young, is an essential tool in dealing with the problem. Responsible behaviour is also required from the companies that profit from alcohol and must be enforced by legislation if necessary. High-alcohol drinks such as alcopops are clearly targeted on the young and are often consumed to excess by under-age drinkers. The Portman Group may say that that is not the case, but any fool can see that the advertising and marketing of drinks are directed at the young. I   must watch what I say, but in many cases those products are consumed by under-age drinkers.
	If those drinks are sold, they should carry a compulsory warning reminding consumers of the dangers, and they should be subject to far higher duty, thereby making them less accessible to young people and under-age drinkers. In addition, we believe that there should be stricter controls on marketing and advertising. More legal and financial responsibility should be placed on the owners of pubs and clubs, who are making money by transferring their costs to the community and especially the police forces, as we have seen in places such as Wrexham, Swansea and Cardiff.
	If the law as it currently stands were strictly enforced, there would be far fewer problems. We all know that it is an offence to serve somebody who is already under the influence of drink. Why are there only one or two prosecutions throughout the UK in any given year?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As a former licence-holder, I knew that my job was on the line if I served people irresponsibly on my premises. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David), we are giving a great deal of responsibility to local authorities. We all need to make sure that our local authorities are using those powers responsibly and adopting an area-wide strategic view of licensing and the application of the existing powers. If that means taking licences away from licence-holders, local authorities should do that now and in the future.

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree entirely. A consensus is clearly building on the subject, and I am pleased that it is.
	Enforcement alone is not enough to free local communities from the threat of antisocial behaviour. I had an exchange earlier with the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones). He made the point that we are all aware of the problem and the need to deal with it, but that looking at   how many antisocial behaviour orders have been applied for is a crude way of assessing the extent of the problem. Last week I spoke with the area divisional commander of the western division, much praised by the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) and rightly so, about how the system was working. The force has a five-stage mechanism leading up to an ASBO. It has very few ASBOs in place, but that is a feather in its cap, not a criticism of the force. However, it takes more time, patience, energy and skill to deal with the problems in the first four stages, rather than going straight to court.

Julie Morgan: I agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he agree that it is important for us to convey them to the public? It is sometimes difficult for the public to understand that the policy is successful in Wales, and that not imposing an ASBO represents a success.

Elfyn Llwyd: Absolutely. The hon. Lady is right. I   understand that the Welsh Affairs Committee has been trying to make that public. The last thing I want to do is to criminalise youngsters, who will probably grow out of the behaviour in a fairly short time. If they can be assisted through the first four stages of the process, well and good. The hon. Lady is right that people do not realise that the fact that ASBOs are not being applied for is a good thing, rather than a bad one. It behoves us all across the spectrum to consider that and to speak candidly with our constituents and explain the position.
	Of course we need more community beat officers. I am not always a fan of the North Wales policenot an unqualified fan, anywaybut I must congratulate the force on creating community beat officers throughout the North Wales area and giving them extra salaries to keep them in that work for five years, or whatever the agreed period is. I am very happy with the excellent work that is being done. I speak as one whose father was a police officer who served in Holyhead and Amlwch in Anglesey. My brother is also a serving police officer.
	I can see the good sense in community beat officers. It is reckoned that 90 per cent. of all crimes are solved as a result of information passed on by the public. If there is a good link and a good relationship between an officer and the public, the policing becomes better and everybody wins hands down. It is said to be an expensive form of policing, but there must be a read-across to the prevention of crime. I recognise that the nature of modern crime has changed and that rapid response vehicles are needed, but there will always be a role for the traditional bobby, the community beat manager.
	Before I conclude, I want to praise Dyfed-Powys police for its initiative of opening up offices throughout the police area, in some places taking the corner of a shop. That is far-sighted of the force, which is enhancing its estate rather than cutting back. There might be just a table and a hot phone, and sometimes civilians manning the point. That is good practice, which I hope will be emulated by others.
	I am not suggesting that I have all the answers this evening, but in the spirit of reasonable political discourse I hope that some of the points that I have made will be picked up by other hon. Members and that we might have a further discussion, in particular about the housing issue. I am pleased that I am meeting the Minister on Wednesday.

Martin Caton: I should like to take the opportunity of this debate to focus on a local issue in my constituencyone that I believe has lessons certainly for the whole of the city and county of Swansea, of which Gower is part, and for the planning system throughout Wales and perhaps the United Kingdom.
	Since the last local government elections, Labour no longer runs Swansea. Fellow fans of the excellent Russell Davies television serial Mine All Mine might have the impression that it is now in the charge of Max Vivaldi and its name has been changed to Barbara, but that is not the case, I am afraid. In fact, in charge now is a ragbag mixture of Liberal Democrats, Tories and independents from across the political spectrum. This is a coalition that is so broad and so unprincipled that there is even room in it for people who copy their election literature word for word, picture for picture, from British National party leaflets. So perhaps it is no surprise that it is prepared to renege on its commitments to the communities of Swansea and drive a coach and horses through its own planning policies if someone offers it enough money.
	Gorseinon, the small town at the heart of my constituency, was, until a few weeks ago, to be the home of a new state-of-the-art bowling and leisure pavilion, providing facilities for all ages, both local and from farther afield. We were within days of seeing a planning application when the rug was pulled. What happened? Asda and Wal-Mart came along with a big fat wallet and offered the council 11 million to lease the same piece of land for a superstore, and it jumped at it. In doing so, it   is not just breaking a promise to Gorseinon and the   bowlers of Swansea, and, incidentally, upsetting the tennis players of the region as it now intends to put the bowls facility in the indoor tennis centre at Morfa, it is going against every policy that applies to the site. They are the Lliw valley local plan, the new Swansea unitary development plan, the Gorseinon regeneration strategy and the specific site development brief itselfall the major planning guidance documents that are supposed to inform the council as it decides the way forward for that city. Those polices ruled out large-scale food retailing on the land because the council knew that a superstore would threaten the viability of many of the small shops in the high street and jeopardise the regeneration of the whole town. But now it is prepared to tear those policies up for cash. It is not just selling Gorseinon down the river, it is undermining the integrity of its own planning system.
	Between them, Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury's and Morrisons control over 76 per cent. of the food retailing market in the UK. In 2000, the Competition Commission defined the grocery market as a complex monopoly that works against the long-term interests of the consumer. The National Retail Planning Forum, which is partly funded by the supermarkets, recently studied the changes that have taken place in the areas surrounding 93 new superstores. It found that the stores were responsible for a net loss of 25,685 employees. In other words, every time a large supermarket opened 276 people lost their jobs. It is probably true that sometimes a new supermarket can provide a focus and   encourage people to use neighbouring retailers and other facilities when they do their main grocery shopping, but I think that that scenario is rare and I am absolutely certain that it is not the one that we face in Gorseinon.
	In 1998, the New Economics Foundation calculated that every 50,000 spent in small local shops creates one job. In supermarkets, 250,000 has to be spent to create extra employment. This is exactly the wrong time to move in this direction. Increasingly, people are finding that they prefer the experience of shopping in a traditional high street to that of supermarket buying.
	Gorseinon high street is looking better today than at any time in the last decade or more, partly thanks to a   successful and stable economy and partly thanks to a regeneration strategy that was supported by the council. The people of Gorseinon, I am pleased to say, are not taking this lying down. The community council, the chamber of trade, city councillors, the Assembly Member, Edwina Hart, and I as Member of Parliament are working together to stop this happening. We are mounting a campaign to convince people across Swansea that this is a bad decision, not made for good, objective reasons after due consideration and proper consultation, but made in a hurry in response to a very large financial inducement.
	That is bad news for every part of the city and county of Swansea, because a promise broken in Gorseinon today can be a commitment reneged on in any part of   the county tomorrow. A totally inappropriate development in Gorseinon imposed for money this year can mean future blight for any other community when similar resources are offered in the years ahead. That has to be resisted now.
	If the development is allowed to go ahead, it will effectively be a shift in policy from looking to shared resources and opportunities throughout the city and county of Swansea towards centralisation of facilities in a limited number of the locations. The consequences of that approach will impact on communities throughout Swansea. At the same time, we intend to persuade councillors from across the political spectrum, including in the ruling administration, that this is a wrong decision   for the future of the council itself. It is a wrong   decision that has been made in the wrong way, and it will damage the reputation of the council if the direction is not changed, and not just in the short term.
	We are reminding councillors of all parties of their commitments and responsibility in respect of the principles of openness and transparency, community involvement and developing trust through engagement. We have seen precious little of any of that in Gorseinon in recent weeks. If those words are anything more than meaningless jargon, the council should reverse its decision and enter into proper consultation with the community about its future.
	In the next Parliament, we need to look at ways in which we can protect communities such as Gorseinon from administrations such as the one in power in this city when they blatantly ignore their own democratically developed planning policesperhaps through a limited third-party right of appeal. I remember that it was at one time Labour party policy to move away from the presumption in favour of development when a council acting as planning authority went against its own adopted planning policies, particularly in the local plan, which has now been replaced by the   unitary development plan in Wales. In those circumstances, members of the community would be able to use the appeal process to challenge a determination of approval. I think that we should take another look at that policy.
	We have not yet reached the stage of a planning application for an Asda superstore in Gorseinon. When we do, I hope that good sense and good judgment will prevail and that the proposal will be thrown out. What I can tell this House is that the people of Gorseinon will fight Swansea council's money-grabbing U-turn every inch of the way.

Hywel Williams: I should like to use the time available to me to look at the provision of   public services in Wales, particularly through the medium of Welsh.
	It is a responsibility for all of us here to ensure that public services are delivered to our citizens at a proper standard, as a matter of right. That is not the case, however, in respect of the provision of public services through the medium of Welsh, and I would like to develop that argument by looking at the Welsh Language Act 1993 and looking a little bit at its antecedents. I want to look at what I think would be a creative and positive way of addressing this deficiency.
	The history of the legal status of the Welsh language is a history of change. It goes back a very long way. To see the very first reference to the Welsh language in legislation, one looks to the Acts of Union of 1532 and 1536, which explicitly banned the use of Welsh by saying that no person who uses
	the Welsh speech or language shall have or enjoy any manner of office or fees
	in England, Wales or any of the King's dominions. The Welsh Courts Act 1942 changed that to some extent, allowing translation in courts. The Welsh Language Act 1967I remember it going through Parliamentestablished the principle of equal validity, whereby if anything was done in Welsh, it was as if it had been done in English. The Act stated, however, that in the case of any discrepancy between an English and a Welsh text, the English text would prevail. It was not a matter of equality.
	The Welsh Language Act 1993 had been campaigned for by a wide range of groups with an interest in Wales.   It was, of course, passed by the previous Administration, and it established the principle that English and Welsh should be treated on the basis of equality, which is slightly different from equality itself. My party and, significantly, the then Labour Opposition opposed the 1993 Act, and Mr. Rhodri Morgan himself said that an incoming Labour Government would introduce a proper Welsh language Bill.
	The 1993 Act set up the Welsh Language Board, which stated that the Welsh and English languages should be treated on the basis of equality. That statement was qualified by the 1993 Act, which stated that that should happen only where practicable and appropriateagain, qualified equality rather than absolute equality. The 1993 Act was unacceptable to the then Labour Opposition and Mr. Morgan, but it is now defended as the epitome of common sense and good practice.
	I have asked about Welsh language provision in the public services on a number of occasions in this House, most recently on 23 March, when I asked about services through the medium of Welsh for people with dementia. I do not know how many times I have written to public bodies in England and Wales and to Ministers in Cardiff and London about the provision of public services in Welsh. Such bodies always reply that they have a language scheme that has been approved by the Welsh Language Board.
	I wrote to the then Minister for Health and Social Services in Cardiff asking about the status of health records written in Welsh and whether such records are acceptable. After a great deal of considerationthe legal department spent three months considering the   matterthe Welsh Assembly told me that the receiving body is responsible for translating such records. In that case, the Welsh Assembly decided, outside the 1993 Act, that medical records in Welsh are acceptable and that the receiving body should translate them.
	I have pursued the issue for a long time. Many Welsh language schemes are goodsome are very good indeed, as far as they gobut they all share this generic problem: they might specify that a public body should correspond with the public through the media of Welsh and English in providing a public service, that public signs inside and outside offices should be in both Welsh and English and, perhaps, that receptionists should be able to give information in Welsh and English, which is all very good, but when one examines the actual servicenot the signs, letters or leaflets, but the service itselfit is provided in English only. Many of my   constituents would prefer to speak Welsh when communicating with a public body and to receive services through the medium of Welsh. Some of them cannot receive services through the medium of English because of their age or their ability.
	The Welsh Language Board has done a great deal of work in promoting the use of Welsh in public services, but it faces becoming part of the Welsh Assembly Government, and it is quite a question whether it will function as effectively in the future. Mr. Rhodri Morgan and the Welsh Assembly Government want to bring the board into the Welsh Assembly Government. How will that be done and is it an opportunity to extend and improve public services through the medium of Welsh?
	I recently asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether
	he will bring forward further legislative proposals in relation to the Welsh language.
	He replied:
	I have no plans to do so.
	When I asked whether any legislative changes would be required to bring the Welsh Language Board back into the Welsh Assembly Government, however, the Secretary of State replied:
	I have not received any request for legislative proposals in that respect, although the First Minister has said that he will look for an opportunity, should it arise.[Official Report, 2 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 943.]
	One can thus infer that it is not whether but when we shall have Welsh language legislation and what it will be. With the current legislative congestion, it may take some time, but it is legitimate for us to discuss what the legislation might be and how we can use that opportunity constructively for public services in Welsh for the proportion of the population that wants them.
	My aim, like that of many people who have the interests of the Welsh language at heart, is to ensure that people in Wales have as much opportunity to live their lives through the medium of Welsh as through English. That is a laudable aim. That is what equality is about. There is some hope in some areas. I live in Caernarfon where Welsh is the common language of the town, so one can live one's life mainly through the medium of Welsh if one chooses. However, when one tries to access public services one comes up against the block that they are usually available only through the medium of English.
	Some years ago, I was a social worker in Pwllheli, for Gwynedd social services department. In that area, there was no language problem; it had been solved. If one came into the social services department and spoke in English, the service was provided in English. If one spoke in Welsh, the service was in Welsh. That bilingual service met the highest standards. The clients of the department were provided with the linguistically appropriate service, there was no language problem. That is also the case in other communities, but their number shrinks every year. Such communities are under threat, so we need to take advantage of any legislative opportunities to address the problem.
	Furthermore, about 40 per cent. of Welsh speakers in Wales live outside the core Welsh-speaking areas. In   general, they live in the south and the east, in communities where Welsh is not a socially prominent aspect of life, where one can live one's life through the medium of Welsh as long as it is under the hatches. If one tries to access any public service, one comes up against the block that they are available only in English.
	Given current demographic trends, it seems that the percentage of Welsh speakers living in the south and east is likely to increase, so there will be more and more pressure to do something about the language problem. It will not be solved informally as it is in the north and the west. That demands a response from the Government; a change in the law. As I have already argued, the history of Welsh language legislation is one of changefrom an outright ban to the situation of near equality brought about by the previous Conservative Government.
	With the demise of the Welsh Language Board, we may face some losses; for example, the board has done much good work on language planning in a wholly apolitical way, looking first at the best interests of the   language. We may face the danger of losing the consensus on the language that has been reached in the   Chamber and in other political forums in Wales. We may see some losses in language-related industries, where the board has also done good work; for example, on translation, especially in the north and the west. There are questions about the function of the board in hearing and pursuing complaints. I referred to that in   my speech on the Public Service Ombudsman (Wales) Bill earlier this afternoon. I accept that the Government have come up with some answers, but they need to be developed.
	The Welsh-speaking population of the south and east is growing, but there is no informal way to ensure that those people will be guaranteed good-quality public services through the medium of Welsh. How are we to respond to that?
	My response is rather different from the one that has been the consensus over the past 10 or 15 years, whereby language planning has taken place using language schemes that clearly have not worked properly. What I   suggest tonight and what I will pursue over the next few months is what could be termed a rights approach. We must look carefully at the rights of individual citizens to receive appropriate public services through the medium of English or the medium of Welsh, as they choose. Such an approach has been pioneered by other groups in terms of race, gender, disability and, most recently, age.
	A rights approach offers a constructive way out of the current situation where services are not being developed. We should put an initial emphasis on developing the services that are most important to users who are in some difficulty, such as people with health problems or care problems and people who are facing the courts or who require Government information directly. To improve public services, people should have positive rights. Why should a child called Sin have a lesser right to speech therapy through the medium of Welsh than his friend, John, has to speech therapy through the medium of English? That is a hard question to answer, and, indeed, the answer is long, practical and costs money, but finding the answer must start with a change in attitude and some long-term planning.
	Other areas that offer themselves most readily to such a rights approach, which is a departure from the most recent way to tackle problems, include the assessment of older people with dementia, dealing with people with mental health problems and people with learning difficulties, the provision of Government information directly to the public over the phone and responses from the emergency services, such as 999 calls, where clear communication is of the utmost importance.
	We were lucky enough recently to have the draft Mental Health Bill discussed by a Joint Committee of the House and the other place, and we had the opportunity to meet the Minister and the Welsh Assembly Government. I raised this very issue with Jane Hutt and asked her whether people would have a positive right to be assessed through the medium of Welsh for compulsory admission to hospital if and when the Mental Health Bill was enacted in Wales. Her answer to that fundamental question was a very positive Certainly, thereby going outside the scope of the Mental Health Act 1983. However, that is a lucky circumstance; we just happened to have mental health legislation on the stocks, and I happened to be in the right place to ask the Minister, who happened to have a positive attitude to the question and answered in a way that I found very acceptable indeed.
	If we are to systemise such improvements to public services through the medium of Welsh, we must take legislative action, and I will certainly press for that if I   am returned after the next election. I have commissioned some research on the issue. I will circulate it to anyone who is interested, and I am looking for responses that provide a constructive way forward. Apart from the procedures that I have mentioned already, such as health assessments, others offer themselves for consideration. For example, there has been some cross-party support in the House and in the other place for Welsh-speaking juries and for Welsh language provision for children held in custody.
	About six weeks ago, I attended a criminal justice conference in Llandudno and heard Professor Rod Morgan, who is the head of the Youth Justice Board, talking about the number children from Wales who are held in custody. There are about 200 every year, 80 of whom are held in Wales and 120 of whom are held in England. Those 120 are held contrary to the guidelines that say that young people should be held within 50 miles of their homes. Welsh-speaking children from my constituency and other constituencies are certainly held in places where no provision is made in Welsh. Professor Morgan was extremely disturbed by that because, as we know, tragically young people who are held in isolation far away from their homes in strange circumstances harm themselves, sometimes even to the extent of killing themselves. He was worried because he said that such provision was probably the major issue facing the Youth Justice Board in Wales. The provision should exist, but it certainly does not, as mental health provision in the medium of Welsh does not.
	I recognise immediately that it is now easier to tackle the problem because of the progress that has been made over several years following the Welsh Language Act 1993. In 1995, I surveyed 15 social services departments and probation services in Wales to ask what sort of provision they had. In response to that survey I received one fairly full answer, one partial answer and one reply saying that the body had a sprinkling of Welsh speakerswhatever that means. One reply told me that it would be an
	unwarranted diversion of staff resources
	even to look at the matter. I do not think that any local authority or anyone involved in probation would say that today.
	We have come a long way since then, but we must recognise that more progress must be made. We have come up against a brick wall. We have the opportunity, perhaps with the change of the status of the language board, to move the matter on. I certainly think that a rights approach would be the way in which to tackle the problem so that we can deliver public services to people who speak Welsh that are of the same standard as those available in English.

Dai Havard: I too was going to concentrate on a specific set of   initiatives in my constituency and talk about the improvements that have been made on crime, unemployment and several other issues. I was interested by the contributions made by some Opposition Members about the positive work that is going on and the partnership working that is taking place to drive such matters forward.
	I have sat through debates in the House over almost four years, but I cannot let the contribution made by the   hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) go. He described a land that I do not see and a community in which I do not live. I actually live in my community, as opposed to Conservative Members, who talk about us, but often do not come and talk to us. I heard an insult tonight to not only my constituents but my country. It was also an insult both to the people in institutions in my country who are actually trying to build it and to police officers. If Conservative Members bothered to speak to police officers in my community about the way in which they are working in partnership with people from other agencies to improve things, they might have a better view of the world.
	Frankly, the hon. Gentleman's comments were an insult to his own party. He does not represent the members of the Conservative party in my constituency to whom I talk. I represent the Conservatives in my constituency far better than Conservative Members, so I really cannot let this go. Conservative Members peddle a view from the outsidenot only in the Chamber, because I have heard it elsewherebut frankly we are fed up with it. Their views are a caricature of the Welsh nation and many of our communities.
	An article appeared in the national press several weeks ago about the serious problem of economic inactivity, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) tried to raise a constructive point earlier about what we are trying to do to deal with that. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), who visited my constituency last week to launch an initiative by the Merthyr Tydfil Institute for the Blind, which not only deals with the blind but is a major provider of opportunities to bring people into work and make the journey from economic inactivity and ill health back to productive employment. Of course, many such people are in that position because of the activities and policies of the Conservative party, which now claims to want to do something about the problem, although it created it in the first place. Good people in my community are trying to do something about the situation.
	I do not deny that there are needs in my constituency, that there are problems, that there are issues relating to ill health and economic incapacity, or that we have problems relating to the quality of work. As was pointed out earlier, we need to have higher-order employment activities, so that we do not just have jobs that can be overtaken by low wages in the rest of the world. Those are real issues that warrant a proper debate, not caricatures and sloganising.
	What is happening is sustained investment in my community. That is what I am interested in, because it is what I need to solve some of those problems. The history of the valleys is one of episodes. We have had jobs and work, and then they have disappeared. We need sustained economic investment in our communities, and that is what we are beginning to get.
	One way that we can address this issue is by using the agencies available to us. As was pointed out earlier, our experience in Wales has been that many things have happened in Cardiff, along the M4 and so on, but we are now beginning to see investment being made elsewhere. As a new Member of Parliament, I joined several of my colleagues and came up with a small amount of money to do some research into where Wales could go. One thing that came out of that research was a Heads of the Valleys strategy. In effect, it is the road from England that runs along the whole of the old coalfield of south-east Wales. That initiative has been taken up by the National Assembly for Wales. Good things are happening, and we will start investing across that crescent. Such investment is long overdue.
	One of my particular disappointments in my four years in this HouseI have several disappointments concerning the conduct of some matters herehas been that initiatives are not seized as quickly as they could be by the Assembly and some of its agencies. We must be   honest about that and try to make it work, rather than bleating on, saying that it did not happen and will not happen. If we put the work in, it can happen. I praise what my colleagues in the Welsh Affairs Committee have said in the various reports about how the agencies and institutions could work better together.
	In my four years in the House, I have also seen where my community and Wales are in the world. Wales does not operate in isolationthat is the point that the Conservatives are missing. They invite us into a trap. They invite us to consider things individually and not in context. Well, I have been a member of the Defence Committee for a couple of years, and as a member of it I have had the opportunity to visit other parts of the world. I have been to Iraq twice and seen the work that the Welsh military are doing in trying to build that   community. I have also been to Afghanistan. People say, Why are you going to Afghanistan? I go there because that is where the drugs that end up in the veins of some of my constituents are grown. I want to see how the British military and other institutions are dealing with the problem of drugs being grown in Afghanistan, exported through Turkey and into Kosovowhere we are also engaged in a policing operationin an effort to stop them being split, bagged, put on the streets and into the veins of my constituents.
	That is why there is a link. It is strategically important that we engage in these issues in the world. When one goes to such communities, one finds ordinary people who wish to build a community and get on with their lives. It is interesting to note that the local authority in my area is celebrating its centenary. Of course, there are all sorts of centenary celebrations. We have had the centenary of the formation of the Labour party, and there is a lot of history in the Labour party. I must carry some of the baggage, because Keir Hardie was the first Labour MP. The point is simply that when one visits other parts of the world, one discovers thatalbeit that the form of the questions and the way in which they come up are differentthe politics remains the same. People are looking for enfranchisement, development and somebody to give them positive help and investment to build their communities.
	That is the community that I live in. It is not the community of fat, feckless, gun-toting, drugged-up individuals that the Opposition seemed to describe. It is not that community, but one that has ambition. Frankly, that was the Opposition's description. Apparently we are all an obese bunch of criminals who tote guns and do not want to go to work. That is the vision, that is the insult, of Conservative Members. It is certainly not the community in which I live: I resent the accusations and I will not have it. We are being invited into a trap. We are being invited to look at points of disaffection individually, one at a time, without seeing them in their proper context. The Conservatives are then trying to whip up hysteria and concern over and above what is warranted on each individual issue in order to distort the truth and invite people into the very trap of not seeing the whole of the argument in its proper context.
	The people in my community are not so daft, Mr.   Deputy Speaker. They have seen it before; they understand it. They know the community and the world in which they live and they do not need any lessons about their problems, as they experience them every day. The difference is that they are prepared to make a constructive contribution and do something about their problems.

Huw Edwards: It is privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard), who has delivered one of his commendably and characteristically robust speeches. Those of us who have been Members of the House slightly longer than him will remember the robust speeches of his predecessor, Ted Rowlands, who also spoke well in this debate for many years.
	I heard the sensitive speech of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) about the Welsh language. When he gets on a train and goes to south Wales through the Severn tunnel, I wonder whether he is aware that, by the time that he comes out of it, he has already passed Wales's first Welsh-medium primary school, Ysgol y Ffn, in a little railway village called Sudbrook in the very corner of my constituency.
	I would like to commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) when she paid tribute to Lord Callaghan. She spoke eloquently about her meeting with him when she was a young Labour party campaigner. I met Lord Callaghan more recently at a soire, as it used to be called, hosted by the previous Speaker, Betty Boothroyd, in Speaker's House on a lovely evening, to celebrate the songs and music of Ivor Novello. Lord Callaghan was there with his wife, Audrey, and it was a delightful evening.
	Four years ago, when we had a similar debate before what we expected would be a general election, we were in the depths of a foot and mouth crisis, which hit my constituency in a devastating way. I will never forget the images of the huge pyres that I saw during the culling of   hundreds and hundreds of sheep and cattle in my constituency. There was a devastating feeling throughout the countryside at that time, but I am pleased to say that there has been a significant improvement in the farming community since then. There has been improvement in farm incomes in the livestock sector, notwithstanding the fact that there are still serious problems in the dairy sector, particularly in the price that dairy producers are able to get for their raw milk.
	I did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin)[Interruption.] I should apologise for that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has just reminded me.
	I did hear the speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). I agree with some of his points, and I share his party's concern about the council tax. I want to tell my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that council tax is the issue that crops up on the doorsteps of my constituents. My constituency, in common with all the constituencies in Wales, has undergone the rebanding exercise. It has had a significant effect in my constituency, given the substantial increase in house prices over recent years without any substantial increase in the capacity of my constituents to pay the council tax. I have every sympathy with them. I certainly commend the 200 rebate that the Government have provided, but the fact that it has been necessary is symptomatic of an   underlying problem with the council tax system. I   applaud the Government's review of that system and hope that something is done about it within a year.

David Taylor: We are in the fourth day of the rebanding exercise that is under way in England, so will my hon. Friend tell the House whether there are any lessons to be learned from the Welsh rebanding exercise, which could help to head off the concerns that he is graphically describing?

Huw Edwards: My hon. Friend might want to make representations to the Government's review of the council tax system, which is under way.
	I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the optimism in the Welsh economy. That is certainly evident in my constituency, where there has been investment in communities, social investment, investment by the private sector and new infrastructure. Anyone who comes to Monmouth can see the new leisure centre that is being built, the new road that is helping to regenerate the town, and the health and social care facilities that are being developed. There has been investment in the health service with a new community hospital in Chepstow. It is the first new hospital to be opened in this country under this Government. I have seen the new day surgery unit opened at Nevill Hall hospital, and recently I was at the opening of the new CT scanner which will greatly increase the capacity of doctors and nurses to diagnose heart disease, cancer and so on and ensure that patients can be treated quickly and more effectively.
	I have been involved in campaigns in recent months that the House should be aware of. One was an environmental campaign. Many hon. Members may see attractive signs saying Woodland for sale when they drive around their constituencies and the country. I   warn them that that is a scam. Those woodlands are being subdivided and sold off. Hon. Members have identified the problem as it affects agricultural land in England, but there is a problem with the subdivision and sale of woodland and meadow land throughout Wales. It has been a particular problem in my constituency, and those who have campaigned against that subdivision have been pioneers in recognising the capacity and limitations of the planning system through the use of an article 4 directive to restrict subdivision and sale of woodland. That has been a particular problem. The website of the company involved is woodlands.co.uk and shows the threat to many of the beautiful woodlands of Wales.
	I represent an area with high standards of education and results. It has schools of great excellence in the public and independent sectors and it is a great privilege to represent them. One of my most serious concerns in recent months has been the threat to a number of small schools in my constituency. I have made representations in support of Darenfelin school, which is a delightful small school in Llanelli hill, Clydach; Llanover school, which is a typical rural school; and Ponthir school in the Torfaen area of my constituency. Of all the school campaigns with which I have been involved, the one that has angered me most is the treatment of Ponthir school by Torfaen borough council.
	Ponthir school is the smallest school in Torfaen, but it serves a distinct community two or three miles from other areas of Torfaen. It had a few dismantlable classrooms when it was bursting to capacity a few years ago, so it has been deemed to have an excessive number of surplus places and earmarked for closure. I am very sad at the strategy of Torfaen borough council for that school, which has the best performance results of any school in Torfaen. The director of education acknowledged that it achieved 100 per cent. in the last SATs results, but said that one year's results were not an average. A Wimbledon champion is a Wimbledon champion, and it does not matter that they were not a Wimbledon champion three years ago or that they might not be in future.
	If Ponthir is the best performing school at the moment, it deserves to kept open, especially as a private nursery is being built immediately adjacent to it which will have a breakfast club, nursery provision and after-school provision. In these days when we must accept the mixed economy of education as well as the mixed economy of health care, it would be a tragedy beyond all tragedies to build a new nursery with an after-school club next to a school that is being closed so that its pupils could not use those new facilities after school. I attended the public meeting where there was wonderful support from the local community, and I will do everything I can to support those parents who want to keep Ponthir school open.
	Finally, I have a few comments about social services.   One of the great privileges of being in the House in recent years has been to witness the legislation that the   Government have passed on carers. There are 9,000 carers in my constituency, probably no greater a proportion than in any other constituency. The House has passed two important pieces of legislation, the most recent initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), who has a particular interest in the subject and set up the all-party carers group since introducing the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004. I wish to pay particular credit to all the carers in my constituency, not least a carer whom I mentioned when I spoke on the Second Reading of that Act. Hermione Ford has campaigned vigorously and rigorously for carers for many years. Sadly, the person she cared for   recently died, but I sincerely hope that she will continue with her campaigns.
	It has been a privilege to contribute to the debate this year. I look forward to representing my constituents here in the House in future debates on Welsh affairs.

Julie Morgan: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), who works so hard for all his constituents. I am also pleased to speak in this debate so close to an election. It is good to represent Labour at such a time. I am confident that the people of Wales will   recognise what Labour has brought to Wales and Cardiff, from both the Westminster Government and   the Welsh Assembly.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, Cardiff has become a much more dynamic and prosperous place over the past few years. Cardiff is booming, and I do not apologise for that. If we have a prosperous capital city, it will help to spread prosperity throughout the rest of Wales. It is great to be a Member of Parliament in Cardiff at the moment.
	Cardiff has recently been boosted by the opening of the Millennium arts centre in Cardiff bay. Its ticket prices are affordableone can get one for 5and it is open and accessible to all the people of Cardiff and Wales. We also celebrate the continued success of the Millennium stadium, and we were all hugely boosted by the winning of the grand slam. I noticed in Cardiff this   morning that flags with red dragons are still flying from cars. The victory has produced in Cardiff and throughout Wales a feel-good sensation that we can all celebrate.
	The university in Cardiff is also a success. It has recently merged with the medical school in my constituency, and that has brought great benefits to the capital.
	Cardiff has a thriving nightlife, but that brings its problems. Policing Cardiff after dark creates major issues and means that community beat officers from areas such as Cardiff, North and the outer suburbs are drawn into the city centre to ensure that law and order are maintained. That is a big problem in a city such as   Cardiff, despite the fact that the nightlife brings wealth and people into the city centre. The additional problems mean that the suburbs sometimes suffer. My constituency has the antisocial behaviour problems that other Members have mentioned, but we lose community beat officers to the city centre. That is a major problem. Even if other police are drafted in, they do not know the area as well as the local police force, and that causes difficulties.
	My constituents have benefited from many of the facilities that have been introduced since 1997. They benefit from the free access to museums introduced by the Assembly Government in Wales and from the access to museums in England that was introduced by the Government in Westminster. I am sure that many Members will have seen people flooding to St. Fagans, with the queues almost up to the M4. The museum is hugely successful and provides a free day out for all the family. The same is true of the national museum in Cathays park, with its wonderful impressionist galleries. They have all been opened to the people of Wales, and I believe that I am allowed to have my view on this issue, despite the rather oldfashioned approach to women's views of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik).

Lembit �pik: rose

Julie Morgan: Wales is benefiting from the Chancellor's steady hand on the tiller. My constituents appreciate the benefits of free bus travel for all pensioners in Wales that was introduced in the last term of the Welsh Assembly. I am very pleased that England is doing the same for off-peak travel. I hope that the English Minister who introduces the policy will consult my Assembly colleague, Sue Essex, who is also the Assembly Member for Cardiff, North. She made a phenomenal success of free bus travel in Wales. I have met pensioners in my constituency who say that it has transformed their lives. As so many pensioners use the bus service, more services are being put on because they have become so popular. That is one of the single acts by the Assembly Government that has transformed people's lives in terms of health, wealth and well-being. I am pleased that it is happening in England as well.
	Prescription charges have gone down another 1 in Wales and eventually we will have free prescriptions, which is a tremendously positive move. Children whose parents so wish now benefit from free breakfasts in the pilot scheme areas. Obviously, an awful lot more needs to be done. We must continue to improve our public services and to tackle the pay gap between women and men. Although it is smaller in Wales than in the rest of the UK, it is important and directly affects poverty in Wales. However, since 1997 we have succeeded in   making solid progress, on the basis of which we can move on.
	Local issues greatly concern my constituents, of course. One of the major issues in Cardiff, North is Western Power Distribution's development plan for the Llanishen and Lisvane reservoirs. It plans to build 300 houses and to concrete over part of the reservoirs. That is almost universally opposed by local residents and local politicians of all parties. I pay tribute to   RAGthe Reservoir Action Groupchaired by Ted Thurgood, which has led a brilliant campaign in organising opposition to the development.
	The root of the problem goes back to the privatisation of the water industry, which resulted in the water industry's assets being sold off. I am opposed to the development not only because of the loss of the amenity to the residents of Cardiff as a whole, but because it is a short-sighted policy. How do we know, in these days of global warming, that we will not need the extra reservoirs? In fact, they were used very recently to supply the Celsa steel works in Cardiff.
	I am calling for a country park to be created in that part of Cardiff. The sailing school operates on the Llanishen reservoir, although the developers have put   up an ugly grey spiky fence all around it. The sailing centre has produced world champions, such as Hannah Mills and David Evans, but the proposed development would largely drain the reservoir and severely restrict the sailing centre's activities. The development is opposed by the Welsh Yatching Association and the   Sports Council for Wales. I have also drawn the proposal to the attention of Ellen MacArthur, the   round-the-world sportswoman, who sent good wishes to the young people training at the centre. The 300 planned houses are bound to have an impact on the neighbouring Lisvane reservoir, which is a site of special scientific interest.
	I met the managing director of Western Power Distribution in Bristol to persuade him to think of the greater good of Cardiff, rather than maximising profits from the sale of the land. I am pleased about the amount of work that Western Power Distribution does in Wales, but I appeal to it to take into account the feelings of people in Cardiff. The issue has attracted a tremendous amount of support from people from all parts of the community.
	On Friday, I was pleased to present a picture of the young sailors of the centre, signed by Ellen MacArthur, wishing them good luck with their sailing. Surely we should be building on and encouraging that sort of activity, rather than restricting it in the way proposed by the plans by reducing the amount of water in the reservoirs. I appeal to Western Power Distribution to think again. The land was in public ownership for many years, and the local people think that it is their land. They have walked their dogs on it and jogged around the reservoirs. It has been part of their life in Cardiff, North. The land needs to be opened up and made available to even more people.
	I urge Western Power Distribution to withdraw its planning application, get into discussions with the city council and find a way to benefit the people of Cardiff.

Nigel Evans: It is a great pleasure to be back at the Dispatch Box. It is after only a short interval, but it is wonderful to be back, and for a St. David's day debate as well. It is not quite St.   David's day, and I know that much has been made of whether it is closer to St. George's day or St. Patrick's day. We know that it is nearest to April Fools' day; I am not sure what that says about any of us.
	I want to pay tribute to at least three Members who I   know are about to stand down if the general election is about to happen. One is the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), who normally takes part in these debates. He makes lucid, superb contributions, particularly on the economy, and the House will miss him. We will also miss the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), particularly for his insight into foreign affairs. He has been a tremendous Chairman of that Select Committee. I grew up in Swansea and followed his career with great interest. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who is sitting in his usual place, has made continual contributions to these debates over the years, particularly on the health service. We will miss him too, and we wish him well in whatever he decides to do in what I am sure will be a busy retirement.
	I should like to associate myself with the words of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about the sad death of Lord Callaghan. He was a superb man, as we can see from all the tributes that were paid to him earlier. The Father of the House, in particular, spoke warmly of Jim Callaghan's character. We will certainly miss him, too.
	If the general election is comingclearly the Leader of the House will not comment on that nowwe must pay particular attention to the comments of the judge in the investigation into the rigging of postal votes. He said that the electoral fraud in Birmingham
	would disgrace a banana republic.
	He went on to say:
	The fact is that there are no systems to deal realistically with fraud and there never have been. Until there are, fraud will continue unabated.
	The general election is coming in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, and I hope that the Leader of the House will at least be able to address some of the points made in that important case.
	Turning to the subject matter of today's debate, I   hope to touch on as many of the issues raised as possible, but I have agreed to speak for only about 10 minutes so that the Minister will have more than ample time to[Interruption.] To apologise, indeed, and to answer many of the points that have been made.
	Council tax has been mentioned time and again. Nobody can be happy about the current levels or, indeed, about the revaluation that has taken place in   Wales. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr.   Edwards) said that it is the question that is coming up on the doorstep time after time. Knowing the houses in Monmouth that I do, I can only imagine how disheartened people are by the council tax bills that they now receive. A gentleman from Sketty in Swansea wrote to me:
	Since my last letter I have received my council tax for 2005, and because they have rebanded, my tax has risen from 872.20 in band D to 1102.32 in band E. So my pension increase for this year is 4.30, and will disappear when my council tax is implemented.
	That is the sort of situation that people face up and down the country. They have seen their council tax increase eating away at any pension increase they have had. Clearly that is something that must be tackled. I do not think that the answer is a local income tax, and I   shall come to that in a moment, but we need to address the issue properly. Given the increases that we have seen, the 200 that the Government are offering senior citizens simply is not enough, particularly as it is for only one year. Something far more radical is needed.
	I have looked at today's edition of the South Wales Evening Post, not my normal reading matter. Of course, when I ran a shop in Swansea, I used to sell that newspaper. We have been talking about the national health service, and the front page of the newspaper says:
	Queues have been forming in the rain outside a Swansea dentistto sign up for private places. The dental crisis rocking the city was brought into sharp focus when would-be patients stood in the pouring rain to grab one of 300 Denplan places available at Quentin Jones surgery in Walter Road.
	One of the people waiting said:
	As a socialist and trade unionist the concept of private dental care isn't one I feel comfortable with . . . But as my teeth aren't in the best of condition, and as I have an 82-year-old mother who needs to have treatment available to her, I felt I had no choice.
	The amazing thing was that the people in the line were so placid and accepting, me included, as I was desperate.
	The article said:
	Practice Manager Jackie Hall said it was not a decision they had taken lightly , but a lack of NHS investment had forced them to start down the private road.

Chris Ruane: It takes eight years to train a dentist.

Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman can say that, but the Government have been in power for eight years, so it is about time for them to have done something about it. We were told at the 1997 general election that we had only 24 hours to save the national health service, but this is testament to what is happening now. The hon. Member for Monmouth spoke a year or so ago about the problems of finding an NHS dentist for his own constituency. It is a real problem.

Huw Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the NHS dentist who has set up a practice in Abergavenny, which was the case I was discussing at that time?

Nigel Evans: Absolutely, but I can only imagine the queue that formed outside that dental practice. People will have travelled for miles to try to get on to that NHS list. We all know that there are huge deficiencies.
	Let us stay with Monmouth for a second, and with the national health service. A lot has been said about statistics, but statistics hide the human tragedies of individual cases. The front page of the Monmouthshire Beacon on 24 February was headlined Home sale to pay for hip operation. The story said:
	A Monmouth couple say they are being forced to sell their home in order to pay for a hip operation which the NHS would not have performed for years.
	Alan Scott, whose house is up for sale, has gone private, paying 9,000 for an operation, because he was going to have to wait so long, in pain. This is not a person who had taken out private health care. This is a man who was in pain and whom the national health service let down. That is a tragic story. We can all bandy figures around, but that is something that has actually happened in the national health service in Wales. We can talk about waiting lists being this and waiting lists being that, but the reality for people who are waiting in pain for operations is that they know they are not getting the service they are paying for, the service they want, and the service that the doctors and nurses who work in the NHS want to give them. That has to be radically altered. Not so long ago, I read in the Western Mail that the Secretary of State had had urgent talks with the Health Secretary about the crisis in the NHS in Wales, particularly compared with the position in England. Clearly, something needs to be done.
	I shall not be able to consider all the issues discussed by everybody today because I have only a few more   minutes. However, over the past few years manufacturing jobs have been in decline throughout the country and particularly in Wales, which has been proportionately more dependent on those jobs. I have spoken many times to the Secretary of State about the climate change levy, which needs to be looked at seriously. It is having an impact on manufacturing jobs in Wales, and if anything can be done to shore up those jobs and ensure that manufacturing has a bright future, it should be.
	We cannot put all our eggs in one basket, as has happened with call centres. We want higher-quality, value-added jobs, too, and we also need manufacturing jobs in Wales, which has depended on them in the past.
	I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. The sheer number of its reports is testament to the Committee's hard work over the past 12 months, and I wish the Committee well for the future in dealing with all the other subjects that need to be addressed. I hope that after the election, irrespective of who is in government, we will keep the Select Committee going, and the Welsh Grand Committee, too. I hope that we will even keep the position of Secretary of State for Wales, in order to ensure that the issues are properly dealt with.
	It is said time and again that there have been drops in unemployment, but there is also the concept of NEETpeople not in employment, education or training and who do not show up in the statistics. We have to look at economic activity in each constituency in Wales. I heard what some Plaid Cymru Members have said about the rural areas where depravity is more

Elfyn Llwyd: Depravity?

Nigel Evans: No, no. I did not mean that.

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Evans: No, I cannot take an intervention. I meant the paucity of being able to get investment in jobs into some of the far-flung areas. I could say that in the case of depravity, those areas could not be represented by a finer Member of Parliament, but I shall not.
	We need to ensure that all areas of Wales are able to access the opportunities for investment in jobs, whether in the manufacturing or service sector. We must ensure that everybody is able to take advantage of that.
	I shall say something about the Liberal Democrats. Some people say, What about them? I say to them, What about the Liberal Democrats? We have heard the usual story today. They say, We want to scrap the council tax, but they say hardly anything about the   income tax that will replace it, which will damage people, particularly families with two workers. They then say, We want to scrap tuition fees, but they say nothing about the graduate tax that will kick in, which will mean that people will pay for the education that they get. They say that they will scrap one tax, but they would introduce another.
	People in Wales must wake up to the fact that there is nothing for nothing in society, particularly with the Liberal Democrats. We get what we pay for, and with the Liberal Democrats people would pay considerably more.
	Let me end by saying

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Evans: No, I must end now.
	The general election will soon be here. We will all be going out to the hustings, probably within a couple of days. We hear the Labour party talking about going forward and not back. What does it do? It goes back to Campbell and to Mandelson, to get them back into the team for the general election. I think, and I believe that the people of Wales believe, that the time for spin is over. People know that their lives have not improved, that the public services have not improved and that they are paying higher taxes through the roof, whether stealth taxes or national insurance.
	I believe that the people are thinking what we're thinking: Bring on the election, Prime Minister. It is time for a change.

Don Touhig: We have a proud Welsh tradition of story telling, and it has certainly been in evidence today. We have heard some amazing stories and quite a few myths and fables during the debate.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in opening the debate, paid tribute to Lord Jim Callaghan, whose story was a lifetime of service to the people of Britain. It was a story of hope that started with the great reforming Government of Clem Attlee and Nye Bevan. Jim Callaghan's story included the nightmare of Thatcherism and the war that the Conservative party waged on working communities in Wales. I believe that Lord Callaghan would be deeply proud to hear the debate today and its story of Wales under a Labour Government, where opportunity extends to the many and not the few and families raise their children in hope and not in poverty and despair.
	The story of Wales today is one of unprecedented prosperity and economic success never seen before. It is   a Labour story. The Government, working in partnership with the Assembly, have provided the stability and the incentives that businesses in Wales need to grow. Under Labour, our companies have picked themselves up from the battering of the Tory years and Wales is now able to compete with the best in the world. We will never compete on low wages and unskilled sweat-shop labour, but we have changed and adapted and acquired new skills and abilities. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said recently, there is no escape from change and no comfort in standing still. In our new Welsh economy there will be no complacency, no inflexibility, no resistance to change, no outmoded ways of working and no restrictive practices. Let businesses and workers in Wales remember that this Labour Government are prepared to take on any vested interest and to make any change that will take us forward in our aim of making Wales one of the most adaptable, skilled and enterprising economies on the planet. In doing that we come closer to our visionto our goalof full employment.
	The economy of Wales is doing increasingly well. There are better-paid workers, increasing skills, increasing investment, increasing growth and increasing prosperity. This year, the minimum wage will rise to more than 5 for the first time, benefiting more than 80,000 workers, two thirds of them women. It is the story of a well-run and exciting economy. It is matched by the story of an economy increasingly run with families and children not around the edges, but at its core. Under Labour, we have a Government who show mothers and fathers that we are listening to them and that we understand the challenges that they face as they juggle their business and work lives with their need to be home with their children and with child care and school provision.
	Just as we believe in a better deal for families, we believe in a decent income and dignity for pensioners in their old age. We are matching our commitment with actions with the winter fuel allowance and extra payments now to help offset council tax increases. Thousands of pensioners in Wales have seen their guaranteed income rise by 50 per cent. since Labour came to power and ended the shameful Tory degradation of pensioners who were forced to live on 69 a week. It is not just the pensioners of today whose retirement has been protected by the Labour Government. Through the Pension Protection Fund and the retrospective financial assistance scheme, the Government are giving hope to workers at Allied Steel and Wire and Abingdon Carpets in my constituency, as well as thousands of others who have been robbed of their pensions by callous and irresponsible employers.
	Wales today is a story of hope, opportunity and prosperity delivered by the Labour Government, but some of the stories that we have heard have been bizarre and ridiculous. If I were generous, I would say that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) entertained us, as he always does, doing his best in the absence of any Tory MPs with Welsh constituencies. It is just as well that he is getting in the practice, because if we have our way there will not be any Tory MPs in Wales after the next general election either. In all seriousness, however, as we approach the election there is a temptation to over-egg the pudding and exaggerate a little, but the hon. Gentleman's remarks on crime whipped up the fear of crime and were an inexcusably shameful performance. Are there no depths to which the Opposition will not plunge for a cheap headline?
	When the Leader of the Opposition was Home Secretary, recorded violent crime rose by 19 per cent. and there was a 166 per cent. increase in overall recorded violent crime. Under the Tory Government, convictions fell by a third. The British crime survey shows that there has been a fall in violent crime of 26 per cent. since 1997 in England and Wales. Yes, there has been a rise in violent crime of 7 per cent. now, but that reflects continuing efforts to improve the recording process, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn). The plain fact is that since 1997, crime in England and Wales has fallen by 30 per cent., burglary is down by 42 per cent., and vehicle thefts are down by 40 per cent.
	A number of hon. Members have mentioned the North Wales police. The posters and advertising by the   Conservative party are shameful and have been condemned by the chief constable and other senior police officers as a disgrace. Under this Government, there are more than 850 extra police officers in Wales because we believe in providing that investment. The Conservative party, however, is not committed to that aim.
	The hon. Member for Leominster went on to refer to the national health service. I remind him that his hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said:
	We've got a problem in this country where the NHS and healthcare has been synonymous. We're here to break that.
	The Leader of the Opposition said that the NHS was a Stalinist creation. The Tories do not have any credibility on the issue of tackling MRSA. In government, they forced compulsory competitive tendering for cleaning contracts on to hospitals. The cheapest provider got to do the job. The Tories ran down hospitals and under-investment led to the problem that we face.
	The plain fact is that 4.3 billion is now being spent on the health service in Wales. The budget for new   buildings and hospital equipment has risen by 107 million. There are 350 more whole-time-equivalent consultants and 5,000 more qualified nurses in Wales. By 2010, the Assembly plans 700 more consultants and GPs, 6,000 more nurses and 2,000 other health professionals. We are putting right 18 years of under-investment, when the Tories closed 70 hospitals and cut training for nurses and midwives. The Labour Government will deliver improvements to the national health service.
	The hon. Member for Leominster said that GCSE attainments were not as good as they were three years ago, and cited the Assembly targets. However, in August 2004 we had the best ever GCSE results in   Wales, and the percentage of passes increased considerably. We are therefore making an important contribution.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) referred to the excellent work done by the Welsh Affairs Committee, which he chairs, and the reports that it has produced. He sought reassurance about the future of structural funds in Wales, and I can tell him that the Government believe that regional aid,   including investment aid for large companies, remains an important tool in helping to raise economic performance in underperforming areas. The Government support the European Commission's underlying aims of less but better targeted state aid. At the same time, we consider that the state aid regime needs to be flexible, and member states must be able to tackle underperformance where it arises.
	Like children at a pick-'n'-mix sweet stall, the Liberal Democrats produced their usual bag of delights in the debate today. We expect nothing less from a party of opportunists who say one thing in Wales and do another when they vote in the Lobby in the House of Commons. All their ideas are hastily put together, and none are costed. I noticed that they were rather quiet about their party's support for yobs, rather than for victims. They will have a job in the coming general election explaining to the people of Wales their plans to leave teenage criminals on our streets and give murderers a vote. That is the policy of the Liberal Democrats.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) spoke about the importance of the aerospace industry in Wales and about improved air links. I can tell him that the National Assembly supports intra- Wales air services and is looking to improve that as part of its Wales transport strategy. The Transport (Wales) Bill mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) would allow the Assembly to arrange such public transport services, where they would not otherwise be provided.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire spoke about   manufacturing, as did other hon. Members. Manufacturing remains subject to intense global pressures, but it still has a strong base in Wales with   world-class companies like Airbus, Sharp, Sony, Ford, Cogent, Logica and DeepStream Technologies. Manufacturing continues to make a significant improvement in the Welsh economy, accounts for 21 per cent. of GVA and employs 70 per cent. of the work force in Wales.
	Welsh exports are up 7.3 per cent. on the previous year. Confidence and activity have been backed by recent business surveys. February saw the 23rd successive month of growth and new business activity in Wales. That is because the Labour Government have put a strong and sound economy at the heart of all we are doing. Atraverda, a battery manufacturer at Abertillery, has created an extra 40 jobs. TTems, a Rogerstone electronics manufacturing company, has secured a 6 million contract to supply underwater sensors to the Ministry of Defence. BSW Timber in mid-Wales has invested 15 million in a sawmill, safeguarding 100 jobs and creating a further 24.
	The hon. Gentleman teased us a little and spoke about the value of the Liberal Democrats when they were in partnership with Labour in the coalition in the Assembly. He went on to criticise the revaluation, and did so again a moment ago in an interjection. Again, the Liberal Democrats say one thing and do another. As part of the Administration in Cardiff, in the Cabinet, they supported the idea of revaluation in Wales. They must be straight with people. That is not what they said in the Chamber tonight.

Lembit �pik: First, is the Minister denying that the Liberal Democrats in government argued in favour of local income tax, but failed to get the support of Labour Ministers for that? Secondly, is he denying that the partnership agreed a method of revaluation which was subsequently junked by Labour, and that what was   implemented was nothing like what had been agreed with the Liberal Democrats?

Don Touhig: Not at all.
	The hon. Gentleman speaks about his party's policy on the local council tax. Let us look at the figures that the Liberals have put together in their own report. I   hope the people of Cardiff bear this in mind. Under the Liberal Democrat council leadership of Cardiff city council, the average band D payer would have to pay an extra 42 a month as a result of their proposals for a local council tax. When one asks the people of Cardiff in all the Cardiff constituenciesCardiff, North; Cardiff, West; Cardiff, Central; and Cardiff, South and PenarthDo you want Rodney Berman and the Liberal Democrats in city hall deciding the level of your local tax?, they certainly do not.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire then had a   little slap at both the Conservatives and the Labour   party, calling us the two old parties. The Liberal Democrats have had more reincarnations than Dr. Who.

Betty Williams: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when rebanding for revaluation was discussed and decided on at the National Assembly for Wales, no political party objected to the process?

Don Touhig: That is my understanding.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Conwy spoke about the reaction of the police to the Tory scares about crime in Wales. She praised the work of the North Wales police service, and she is right to do so. It is doing an excellent job. It has 232 extra officers since Labour came to office, an increase of 17 per cent.
	The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) spoke about affordable housing and referred to the fact that he and I are to meet later this week, and I look forward to the paper that he will present to us. But the Government have taken a number of steps to try to help to overcome some of the difficulties that he raises. In Wales, 68 per cent. of all transactions will be exempt from stamp duty, and as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor recently announced in his Budget, first-time buyers will be helped by the doubling of the stamp duty threshold to 120,000.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the issue of second homes, and I have no doubt that that does impinge on linguistic issues. In Wales, about 1.3 per cent. of houses are second homes, but I appreciate that in his constituency that figure could be much higher. His   comments about crime were measured and helpful, and I took on board his comments about social exclusion and drugs and alcohol problems. As a Back Bencher, I remember having an Adjournment debate about alcohol misuse, and at that time a company was doing market research on alcohol-based milk shakes. If they were not targeted at young people, I do not know who they were targeted at. I regret that the hon. Gentleman was somewhat dismissive of the powers to be given to local councils to decide licensing hours, because that will be a major contribution.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) gave us quite an insight into the ragbag bunch led by the Liberal Democrats who run his council in Swansea. I   hope that in the weeks ahead he continues to expose the shameful fraud that they have perpetrated on the electors of Swansea, and the sooner they are kicked out the better.

Lembit �pik: Will the Minister give way?

Don Touhig: I am sorry, but I am pressed for time.
	The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) spoke about the importance of the Welsh language legislation and its impact on Welsh public services. The Government are committed to the principle of treating Welsh and English on the basis of equality in the delivery of public services, although he is right to point out that there are difficulties in that respect. I am sure that he is aware that the former chairman of the Welsh Language Board, Rhodri Williams, said that it had not supported calls for new Welsh language legislation, and he believes that persuasion is the way to equip and prepare people to handle queries in the Welsh language.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) spoke with a passion about the true state of Wales, not the myths and the picture that was painted by the official Opposition spokesman of a Wales that I did not recognise, a Wales that I do not live in. Of course, he does not live there either, and that is why he does not know the real state of things in Wales.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr.   Edwards) spoke about the improvement in the farming community in his area, whose interests he represents so well. It is a major employer and forms a major part of the economy in his constituency. He also covered a range of other measures that the Government are taking to help to improve the lot of his constituents.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie   Morgan) talked about the booming city of Cardiff. It is a great and wonderful city and we are proud that it is our capital city.
	Then we had the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr.   Evans). I have two words for the hon. Gentleman: welcome back. He has not changed, but in contrast to the hon. Member for Leominster he had a much more sensible approach to the debate, although we would not agree with some of what he said. However, he certainly did not paint the exaggerated picture of our Wales that his hon. Friend did.
	Throughout Wales's industrial history, working people have had their lives shortened because of poverty grinding down and crushing their spirit. We have come far because Labour Governments have done much to   raise families up from poverty and disease. I am deeply proud of this Labour Government's historic commitment to halve child poverty by 2010 and to end it within a generation. The great socialist James Maxton said:
	Poverty is man made therefore open to change.
	That is the view of this Labour Government. Because of what we have done, that depth of poverty is now the exception and not the rule.
	Unemployment in Wales is now less than 60,000, from a Tory high of over 150,000, and that teaches us that Wales faces a choice. The great Labour Welshman, Nye Bevan, saw unemployment as the acid that eats into the homes of the poor. The choice as we face a general election will be simple. The choice is between a Conservative party whose leader called the minimum wage absurd, and a Labour party that believes in a decent wage for a decent day's work. The choice is between a Conservative party that would charge for delivering the health service and a Labour Government who will ensure that the health service is free at the point of need. The choice is between a Labour party that will deliver for the people of Wales and a Tory party that will   take us back and destroy Wales. I know that when the election comes the people of Wales will choose Labour.

Nick Ainger: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.   Motion, by leave, withdrawn

PETITION
	  
	Make Poverty History Campaign

Paul Truswell: This petition, collected over a relatively short period, demonstrates the support of my constituents and others for the Make poverty history campaign. The petition echoes early-day motion 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), whose tireless work on international development issues will be sadly missed. The petition reads:
	The Petition of residents of Pudsey constituency and others,
	Declares that the current debt crisis, trade injustice and shortcomings of aid exacerbate poverty, inequality, the HIV/AIDS crisis and environmental degradation across the developing world; and further declares that if the international community is to make poverty history then there needs to be further co-ordinated political action by the world's governments, including the United Kingdom, aimed at trade justice, dropping the debt and providing more and better aid.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the United Kingdom Government to lead the way for change, and to use its influence when holding the presidency of the G8 and chairing the EU to make poverty history in 2005.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

MR. MICHAEL HART

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Ainger.]

Richard Bacon: I am pleased to have the opportunity to open this debate, and I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for joining me in a debate about a financial fraud that discloses some glaring inadequacies in financial regulation and that leaves investors and anyone who writes a cheque worryingly exposed. I have attended a number of Adjournment debates recently in which the Minister's winding-up speech has had a slightly depressing ring to it. I do not accuse the Financial Secretary in that regard, but I am looking for a serious reply on a very serious issue that affects many people who have had money stolen and raises wide public policy implications.
	The fraud came to light about two years ago, when an independent financial adviser, Michael Hart, delayed returning funds due to one of his investors on a maturing investment, so much so that the investor, a   constituent of mine, raised the matter with Hart's employers, Lucas Fettes, who called in the police. I have five constituents who have been victims of this theft and have had money stolen from them in amounts ranging from 10,000 to 90,000. This was part of a widespread fraud involving a total of 22 investors over 12 years, mostly in East Anglia. My hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) also have constituents who were affected and they send their apologies that they cannot be here this evening.
	In total, Michael Hart stole some 1.7 million, most of which he has spent. Last November, he pleaded guilty to 14 specimen charges and was convicted of theft and other offences, and he is now serving a six-year prison sentence. The fraud was a simple one that has astonished all who have heard about it. In recent years, the fraud mainly involved Abbey National, because as it turned out, it was the most lax and the easiest to use to perpetrate the fraud. There are also some cases, including those involving my constituents, which involved the Norwich and Peterborough building society, and others involving the Leeds and Holbeck building society.
	Michael Hart, working for a respected firm of financial advisers, Lucas Fettes, persuaded investors to take out Abbey National and other investment products such as individual savings accounts. He told them to write out crossed cheques payable only to the financial institution, for example a cheque made payable to Abbey National or to Norwich and Peterborough Building Society, precisely so that their money was safe; at least, that is what he told them. He then took the cheques to an Abbey branch in Norwich or to the   Norwich and Peterborough building society and so on, where he paid them into his own personal savings account in the name of Michael Hart. Even though some of the cheques were for up to 50,000, Abbey and other financial institutions did not ask the cheque signatories whether the bank had their permission to divert the money into Hart's account; they just paid it directly to him. This happened 25 times in the last two years of the fraud.
	Three of the big unanswered questions to this day are as follows. Why would anyone who had wanted to pay money to Michael Hart make his or her cheque payable to Abbey National, to the Norwich and Peterborough building society or to the Leeds and Holbeck? Why would the bank and building societies involved assume that the victims did want to pay money to Hart? How did Abbey and the others know that the payment was not intended to reduce the cheque writer's mortgage, for example?
	Certainly Abbey and the building societies have no answer to those questions, but they have refused to compensate victims, in the case of Abbey saying to some that since it paid the money into a fraudster's account, the victims were not even technically customers of the bank.
	Hart's Abbey pass book for the two years before he was caught shows that in that time alone he paid cheques worth some 1,030,000 into that account. Hart laundered the money so fast that in all that time it earned just 60 in interest. Despite regularly inspecting Hart's pass book and auditing the account five times, Abbey saw nothing suspicious. To this day, neither my constituents nor any other victims have had their money back.
	For its part, Abbey said it was satisfied with its security arrangements and that it had merely followed industry practice on processing cheques. However, it had not followed industry practicesection 90 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 states that cheques crossed and marked account payee cannot be paid into an account other than that of the named payee. At the very least, Abbey should have held the money in its own account until it found out the payee's intentions.
	The legislation's intentions are highlighted in the Association for Payment Clearing Services' Definitive Guide to Cheques and the UK Clearing System, which states:
	if a cheque is crossed a/c payee only, it can only be paid into the account of the named payee. The crossing cannot be deleted, nor can the cheque be endorsed over to a third party.
	That is common knowledge or, at least, people think it common knowledge. The irony is that APACS itself is made up entirely of the clearing banks, including Abbey National. When the Hart case came to trial, the Crown court judge, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police were extremely critical of Abbey National and its regulator, the Financial Services Authority. Indeed, the police and the CPS have written to the FSA about the abuses that they saw.
	Few people believe that their cheques are vulnerable in the way that that case has exposed or that banks and building societies can avoid their obligations. However, despite the intervention of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, three Members of Parliament, the financial ombudsman service and the media, none of the victims has received a penny in compensation.
	Direct appeals to Abbey and to the other institutions have fallen on deaf ears, and the financial ombudsman service has been ruminating on the case for more than six months, held back from issuing a ruling by delaying tactics from the financial institutions. Money that could have been spent compensating victims has been invested in a QC to help defend the institutions' position. Even direct appeals by Abbey victims to Lord Burns, the chairman, and by some of the other victims to the chief executives of the building societies involved have amounted to nothing. During Abbey's sale to the Spanish business Banco Santander last year, victims urged the new owners to set compensation aside during the due diligence phase, but nothing has been heard since.
	As a result, those who lost money set up the Abbey National Victims Group to urge the FSA to intercede in order to alert the public to the abuses of the crossed cheque system, to introduce better safeguards to protect the public and to right the wrongs that the victims have suffered. Those points apply equally to the victims of the scam whose cheques were made payable to the Norwich and Peterborough building society and to the Leeds and Holbeck building society, and the group includes others in addition to Abbey National victims.
	The FSA was established to maintain confidence in and to promote understanding of the financial system, to secure the appropriate degree of protection for consumers and to reduce the extent to which it is possible for a business carried on by a regulated person to be used for a purpose connected with financial crime. Since the fraud came to light more than a year agoit is five months since Hart was convictedthe FSA has done nothing; the public remain unaware of the dangers that they face; the banking regulations have not been changed; the victims have not been compensated; and the FSA has issued no directions.
	However, this is the same FSA which, less than six months before the Hart fraud came to light, fined the same Abbey National 2.3 million for money-laundering offences. In a press release on 10 December 2003, which is still on the FSA website, the FSA fined Abbey National companies 2,320,000. The FSA director of enforcement, Andrew Procter, stated:
	The failure by Abbey National to monitor compliance with FSA Money Laundering Rules demonstrated a marked lack of regard for its regulatory obligations. Abbey National failed to ensure that suspicious activity reports were promptly considered and reported to the National Criminal Intelligence Service and to identify customers adequately. Both these controls are fundamental to the UK's Anti-Money Laundering regime's effectiveness. Their failings also reflected the fact that the overall control environment, particularly compliance monitoring, has been weak across the group over a prolonged period.
	That is a fairly damning indictment.
	In fairness, the FSA expressed confidence that Abbey would fall into line, but it is quite clear that the bank did not do so, because the Hart money-laundering offences were committed during the FSA's investigation and for months afterwards. Hart was not stopped by the FSA's or Abbey's new checks and controls, but by one of my constituents who had suspicions about a maturing investment that he believed he had purchased through one of the other institutionsthe Norwich and Peterboroughand raised his concerns with Michael Hart's employer.
	The FSA was partly responsible for that fraud being able to continue for so long. Its duties include authorising people to be fit and proper financial advisers. It is the only financial authority with access to criminal records to confirm an adviser's suitability and failed to spot that Hart had a criminal record for theft, or to pass that on to his employers. Yes, that is right: Michael Hart already had a criminal conviction. About 20 years ago, he was convicted of stealing money from his employer, an insurance broker, and was given a two-year suspended sentence. After that, he continued to work in the financial services industry, with jobs at Norwich Union, Clerical Medical, CE Heath  Co., an insurance broker, and Lucas Fettes, an independent financial adviser.
	Last December, disgusted by eight months of inactivity on the FSA's part, the victims group lodged a formal complaint with its chief executive John Tiner. Nearly four months on, the FSA has not even begun its investigation. Its excuse is that it is unable to investigate a complaint while its own inquiries are continuing. A whole year to investigate the background to a simple fraud, to alert consumers and to change the regulations is excessive. The authority has still reached no conclusions.
	Unfortunately, the story gets worse still. When the FSA broke the news of the delayed investigation into the   complaint, it revealed that it would not be investigating failings of the crossed cheque system. Its reasoning shocked the victims and still shocks me today. Despite having asked the banking industry to set up a committee to review problems with the cheque clearing system, the FSA said:
	Cheque payments are not in themselves a regulated activity in the UK. Therefore this aspect of the matter is not a direct responsibility of the FSA. The standards for cheque payment activities are in the main set by APACS.
	APACS, as I have already outlined, is made up exclusively of the clearing banks themselves, so we have a case of the banks policing themselves and failing the consumer.
	If the FSA has no responsibilities, what about the Treasury? As the Financial Secretary knows, he wrote to me on 25 January, stating that
	the Government is aware of current concerns relating to cheque fraud.
	However, he went on to say:
	Under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 the FSA is operationally independent of the Government but subject to a number of accountability mechanisms . . . Accordingly, if your constituents are unhappy about the way the FSA has carried out its functions in relation to the matter, they might wish to use the FSA's complaints scheme.
	We find ourselves in a situation where the victims, the FSA and the Treasury all recognise that there is a crisis in the cheque clearing system and that it is failing consumers, but no arm of the Government has the ownership or authority to resolve the problem; instead, it is left in the hands of the banks that created it.
	That is a serious failing at the heart of Government and, because of it, consumers are blissfully unaware that the crossed cheque system can leave their money exposed, that no arm of Government is able to warn or protect them and that they, like my constituents and those of other Members, can go unrecompensed. Throughout the UK, people writing crossed cheques across the UK remain at risk because their banks can still pay the money into someone else's account and refuse to compensate them. The FSA has refused point-blank to investigate its failure to regulate the cheque handling system, referring victims to a body made up exclusively of the banks themselves, including of course Abbey. The Government and the FSA have failed to   warn the public or to change the system. The Government, the FSA and the institutions involvedAbbey, the Norwich and Peterborough, and the Leeds and Holbeckhave stonewalled both victims and MPs, and refused to compensate victims or be part of a compensation package involving Lucas Fettes and Hart's sequestered assets. The CPS complaints to the FSA about Abbey's behaviour seem to be ignored. The   financial institutions are using delaying tactics with   the financial services ombudsman, and the FSA is refusing to investigate complaints into its own behaviour until it eventually gets round to taking a decision on Abbey.
	Everyone seems to think that it is someone else's responsibility. The Department of Trade and Industry says it is the Treasury's. I have a letter from the office of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry saying that it is a matter for the Treasury and referring my letter to the Chancellor's office. The Treasury says that it is really a matter for the FSA. Meanwhile, the FSA says that it is really down to APACS, which is responsible for cheque clearing. The FSA says that it has initiated discussions with the main trade associations on the banking side
	in the context of seeing if banks might be able to take more measures to guard against fraud.
	That is simply inadequate.
	The FSA has a statutory duty to safeguard consumers and to act in their best interests. It has an obligation to ensure consumers are compensated where financial institutions have acted negligently. It has the lead role in policing the banking and investment sectors and in setting standards, rules and codes to protect consumers, to eliminate fraud and to prevent money laundering. In the case of Michael Hart, it has failed in each of those areas. People have lost 1.7 million, and as a direct result of FSA inertia, people still do not have their money back.
	The FSA has failed to identify the most basic and fundamental weaknesses in the crossed cheque system. It has failed to protect consumers when the flaws were drawn to its attention by victims, so that nearly two years after the danger was exposed and five months after Hart was convicted, customers are still exposed. It has failed to draw wider consumer attention to the weaknesses, thereby allowing consumers generally to be put at risk for longer. It failed to identify that Michael Hart had a criminal record for dishonesty and was simply not a fit and proper person to be an FSA-authorised independent financial adviser.
	The FSA has failed to put pressure on the banks and building societies, and the best that it can come up with is the wholly inadequate response that it has initiated discussions. Rather than issuing a direction or holding the most urgent review with the Government, it has merely set up a committee inviting the industry to propose a solution. It has failed to put pressure on banks and building societies to compensate victims or to remind financial institutions of their duty of care obligations to customers. It has failed to monitor Abbey's security failings, even though it had clear early warning of them and had fined Abbey 2.3 million for having a slack regime: a rum world this, where the bank gets fined because it has opened itself to the risk of money laundering, but when it actually occurs, nothing happens.
	The FSA has failed to communicate effectively or in a timely manner with Members of Parliament or victims, even taking three months to respond to one MP. That farce cannot continue. I urge the Financial Secretary to   do four things: first, to commit the Treasury to undertake a full and fundamental review of the failings of the system; secondly, to recommend changes; thirdly, to publish the findings; and, fourthly, to intercede in this case and tell the FSA to bring its review to a very speedy conclusion and to give the highest priority to compensating the victims of what is plainly a dangerous systemic failure.

Stephen Timms: I very much welcome the fact that the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) has secured the debate, and congratulate him on doing so. He has written to me twice on this case and spoken to me informally about it. I am grateful to him for bringing to my attention what is clearly a very important issue. As he said, his constituents and others have lost substantial sums as a result of Michael Hart's activities, and I   should like to express my sympathy to Mr. Hart's victimsboth the five people in hon. Gentleman's constituency and all the othersfor the dreadful distress that they have endured.
	The hon. Gentleman accurately describes the fraud that was perpetrated, and as he said, Mr. Hart has since been convicted and is serving a six-year sentence for numerous counts of theft. The Financial Services Authority has been working closely with the firms concerned about how best to achieve compensation for the investors who have been affected.
	The hon. Gentleman asks how it was that the banks and building societies involved were willing to pay cheques made out to them into Mr. Hart's personal accounts. A number of people would fairly raise that question. For completeness, in the unlikely event that they have not already done so, I point out that the hon. Gentleman's constituents should complain directly to the firm in question, but I imagine that they have already done so. If they are dissatisfied with the response that they receive, they can take their complaints to the independent financial ombudsman service. From what he says, that may well also have happened. If they are unhappy with the FSA's handling of the matter, they   can complain to the FSA directly. He says that that has been done. If they are still dissatisfied, they can complain to the independent complaints commissioner. Of course, they can do so if they are dissatisfied about the time taken to determine their complaints, and I   gather from what the hon. Gentleman says that that has been an issue in this case.
	It is interesting to note what the Building Societies Association has said about the topic. It pointed out that the current practice is for many banks, building societies and other institutions to accept cheque deposits made by   customers that are payable to the institution. It is estimated that 20 per cent. of all cheques deposited are made out as payable to financial institutions. That is a long-standing practice, and although it is clearly of little comfort to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, there have been only a handful of cases of theft of this kind in 150 years. I listened carefully to the good case that he made, but when he referred to a crisis in the cheque clearing system, I thought that he was somewhat overstating the position at which we have arrived. If depositing cheques in such a way was banned, there could be substantial inconvenience, and perhaps financial loss if people who were intended to receive payment were not able to do so.
	The FSA is in discussion with the banking industry to identify the scale of the risks relating to the handling of cheques made payable simply to banks or building societies and what can be done to reduce the chances of future fraud of this kind. I await the outcome of those discussions with great interest and hope that they will not be long delayed. The hon. Gentleman referred to the amount of time that has passed, and I agree with him that it is clearly important, from everyone's point of view, that such fraud should not be repeated elsewhere.
	Some steps have already been taken. The new edition of the banking code, which was published last month, gives clearer advice to customers about how to reduce the risk of fraud when making out cheques payable to banks and building societies. It might be worth reading to the House what the new edition says at paragraph 12.6:
	When you write a cheque, it will help to prevent fraud if you clearly write the name of the person you are paying the cheque to and put extra information about them on the cheque especially if you are not personally paying a cheque in (for example, because you are sending a cheque by post).
	A little later it says:
	If you are making a cheque payable to a bank or building society, do not make the cheque payable simply to that organisation. Add further details in the payee line (for example XYZ Bank, re J Jones, account number xxxxxx). You should draw a line through unused space on the cheque so unauthorised people cannot add extra numbers or names.
	I hope that the new guidance will be widely publicised and that cheque users will heed it. It is clearly of little comfort to Michael Hart's victims, because they have already been victims of fraud, but its observance will make it much less likely that others will be defrauded in the same way in the future. I welcome the change to the   banking code and hope that other effective and proportionate ways can be found to reduce the risks of future fraud.

Richard Bacon: If there is new guidance that is clear, it is obviously welcome. However, none of that alters the fact that the APACS definitive guide to cheques and the   UK clearing system states:
	if a cheque is crossed a/c payee only, it can only be paid into the account of the named payee.
	That is the guidance now. The Financial Secretary must accept that when people are asked to write a cheque to a financial institution rather than to Michael Hart, for example, they think that that means something.

Stephen Timms: As I say, I understand that 20 per cent. of cheques are made payable to a financial institution. The long-standing practice has been to permit them to be treated in the way in which they were treated in this case. I certainly hope that the guidance will be widely publicised so that people appreciate the steps that they can take to protect themselves from a recurrence of the problem.
	I think that the banking code works well. The Treasury Committee has made the point that
	the Banking Code is a good model of self-regulation.
	We should look primarily to the banking code as the vehicle for addressing the issue, although I recognise that it is important to improve the protection that consumers may enjoy.

Richard Bacon: I accept that the practice is long-standing, but it is directly contrary to the APACS definitive guide. If the practice is leaving people exposed in such a way, perhaps the Treasury and the FSA should get together to review the entire system to ensure that the problem simply cannot arise. I am trying to make the point that when people write a cheque payable to an institution, they think that a safeguard is being rendered to them that would otherwise not exist. They are thus being misled.

Stephen Timms: The issue is the interpretation of the guidance quoted, and in practice it has been interpreted in the way that I described. Hopefully, the new guidance will make it clear to people what they need to do to ensure that they enjoy the protection that, according to   the hon. Gentleman, they have always believed that they enjoyed when writing out a cheque in the name of a financial institution.
	Let me say a few words about the more general problem of cheque fraud, which we are determined to tackle. We have established a specific policing unitthe dedicated cheque and plastic crime unitthat works closely with the banking industry to reduce card and cheque fraud, using intelligence provided largely by the industry. In addition, since April last year the Home Office has provided additional funds to enable the City of London police to expand its fraud squad. The Home Office and the Corporation of London each contributed l million in the last financial year, and the Home Office has also provided capital start-up costs. That significant addition to resources for the fight against fraud will enable the City of London police to take a lead role in that fight, and not just in the square mile.
	I understand that one of institutions involved in this caseAbbey, of which the hon. Gentleman was very criticalhas said that if, after the legal channels have been exhausted, the investors have still not been fully refunded, it would be happy to offer an ex gratia payment, so that no one who thought that they were   buying an Abbey product will be financially out of   pocket. I welcome that reassurance, which it is important to put on the record. In the case of another of the institutions involved, I am told that the making of   such a payment might be conditional on the FSA's agreeing to undertake an investigation of Lucas Fettes. It is not clear to me that that is an appropriate stipulation to impose. As a matter of policy and because of the confidentiality requirements imposed by section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the FSA does not normally make public whether it is investigating a particular matter, or, necessarily, the findings or conclusions of an investigation. Of course, if the investigation leads to enforcement action, the FSA will publicise it, as happened in the earlier Abbey case to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
	I understand that the FSA has considered the circumstances carefully in the light of the criteria published in its enforcement manual, and it has concluded that it is unable to state whether it is investigating this particular firm; for the same reason I,   too, have not been informed. The FSA has, for very good reasons, genuine operational independence from   the Government, and I note in the light of the   Conservative party's recent policy statement on financial services regulation that there is agreement across the House on the value of independence for the regulatory agency.
	To protect investors, the 2000 Act established the financial services compensation scheme in order to act as a safety net and fund of last resort for consumers and small business customers of FSA-regulated financial services firms that are unable, or likely to be unable, to pay claims against them because they have gone out of business or are insolvent. The 2000 Act also established the single financial ombudsman service to adjudicate over customers' complaints against regulated firms. As I set out in my letter to the hon. Gentleman, the FSA is   accountable to Parliament, Ministers, consumers and   the industry via a number of mechanisms. They include the independent complaints commissioner, who   investigates complaints against the FSA; an independent tribunal, which reviews the FSA's regulatory decisions; the requirement for the FSA to submit an annual report to the Treasury on the discharge of its functions; the Government's power to appoint and dismiss the FSA chairman and board; and the independent consumer and practitioner panels, which advise on and represent consumer and industry concerns to the FSA.
	I think that the balance is now about right. I note that the shadow Chancellor called last week for consumer protection to be provided in the least burdensome manner possible. It is right to look to the banking code in particular as a way forward and a means of addressing the problem that the hon. Gentleman has properly drawn to our attention. That would be preferable to introducing new regulations.
	I commend the vigour with which the hon. Gentleman has pursued this case and I want to assure him and his constituentsand indeed others rightly concerned about the matterof the very high seriousness with which the Government regard these issues. The industry also needs to recognise the seriousness with which the House is viewing the matter.
	I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will, like me, look forward to the outcome of the FSA's talks with the industry, which I hope will reach a conclusion sooner rather than later. I have asked Treasury officials to keep me abreast of progress in those discussions and I hope that their outcome will provide all of us with grounds for optimism that the dreadful experiences suffered by the victims of Michael Hart will not be experienced by others in the future.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.